LIBRARY 

OF THK 

University of California 

Y.M.p. A.pF U.O, 

z/lccession \.Q.V^SiA Class 




THE SOUL 



HERE AND HEREAFTER 



a BiWtcal Stutrg. 



BY 

CHARLES M. MEAD, 
•I 

PBOFESSOB IN A2n)OVEK THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 




PUBLISHED BY THE 

CONGREGATIONAL PUBLISHING SOCIETY, 

BOSTON. 



BT7i-( 



coptright, 1879, by 
The Congregational Publishing Society. 



Press of Wright jt Potter Printing Company, 
79 Milk Street, Boston. 



STBREOTTPBD BY 

C. J. PETERS & SON, 

73 FEDEBAl. STEEET. 



PEEFAOE, 



THE germ of the following work is contained in a few 
articles published in the spring of 1878, in the 
New- York "Independent," in criticism of Dr. C. L. 
Ives's "Bible Doctrine of the Soul." These, however, 
were very incomplete and fragmentar}^, considered as 
a general discussion of the topics treated of in that 
book. Moreover, the active and earnest efforts made 
to disseminate the doctrines advocated, not onl}^ by Dr. 
Ives, but by other writers of the same school, seemed 
to call for a more exhaustive treatment of the funda- 
mental questions discussed in these works. Particu- 
larly Mr. White's " Life in Christ," and JVIr. Pettin- 
gell's " Theological Trilemma," as having come 
prominently before the public within a few j^ears, — the 
former in a third edition, published a little more than 
a year ago, and the latter appearing for the first time 
last spring, — appeared to merit some attention. Mr. 
White's work, and the older one by Mr. Hudson 
(*' Debt and Grace "), are pronounced by Rev. W. R. 
Huntington, in the preface to his book on " Conditional 
Immortality" (published also last j'car), to be "the 
classical authorities " on the subject of his work. Mr. 

iii 



101784 



IV PREFACE. 

Pettingell's book is written in an impassioned style, 
and evidently under the impulse of earnest conviction. 
This passionate earnestness, and the vigorous though 
not polished rhetoric with which he denounces those 
whom he is opposing, will produce an impression on 
many ; though the work, as a whole, is hardly fitted to 
exert any lasting influence. Still it has seemed best to 
subject his work, in some of its leading features, to a 
careful criticism. Mr. Huntington's work contains 
nothing that merits special attention ; and it has, there- 
fore, received none. 

The object has been to present such a discussion of 
the subject of annihilation, or, as it is now more com- 
monly called by its advocates, of conditional immor- 
talit}^, as will be adapted to general use, and fitted to 
meet the style of argument now made familiar to the 
popular mind. Consequently, much more attention is 
given to the work of Dr. Ives than its intrinsic merits 
deserve ; and every thing like an abstruse and scho- 
lastic discussion of the subject has been avoided, '^o 
attempt has been made to produce a learned work by 
discussing and quoting a large number of authors, or 
by such a minute exegesis as might be in itself valua- 
ble, 3"et would confuse the ordinary reader, and not so 
well accomplish the purpose of the work. Accordingly, 
also, when Hebrew and Greek words are given, thej'' 
are printed in English letters, so that those unac- 
quainted with those languages can at least know how 
the words are pronounced. But, notwithstanding the 
popular style of treatment adopted, it will be found, I 
trust, that the biblical doctrine has been carefully 
studied and presented, and that the arguments of others 



PREFACE. V 

have been correctly apprehended and stated, and hon- 
estl}^ refuted, if refuted at all. 

Furthermore, it should be remarked that the aim of 
this work is to present the biblical doctrine of the soul 
and its destiny. Hence merely metaphysical argu- 
ments have been for the most part avoided. I have 
also made no effort to satisfy such sceptical objections 
as involve a rejection of biblical testimony. The 
authors referred to appeal with great emphasis to the 
Scriptures as the source of their doctrine, and de- 
nounce the so-called orthodox doctrine as being 
founded on unbiblical, philosophical, and even heathen 
conceptions of the soul. It will be found that the 
challenge involved in these allegations has not been 
evaded. 

I have also not entered upon that important field of 
inquiry, an investigation of the history of the doctrines 
of biblical psychology and eschatology. Such a dis- 
cussion would be very much in place, especially as the 
advocates of the doctrine of conditional immortality 
claim for themselves the support of the earliest Chris- 
tian teachers. Dr. Ives calls the current doctrine a 
doctrine of " modern theology," asserting that it was 
not the doctrine of the early Church. He gives no 
proof of his assertion; and my silence should not be 
interpreted as an assent to the correctness of it. On 
tlie contrary, it maj^ be affirmed that the evidence of 
ecclesiastical history shows abundantly, that, whatever 
individual utterances may be found here and there, in 
the writings of the early church fathers, favoring anni- 
hilationism, it was never the general doctrine of the 
Church. But this is a department of research which 



vi PBEFACE. 

could not have been entered upon without too mu(3h 
swelling the size of the work. The main question is, 
after all, What saith the Scripture? and, for the an- 
swer to this question, we must carefully interrogate the 
Scriptures themselves. 

I am aware that the questions here considered have 
been ably treated in other works, especially in Presi- 
dent Bartlett's "Life and Death Eternal." But cer- 
tain aspects of annihilationism are here discussed more 
fully than in his work, particularly 'the materialistic 
form of the doctrine ; and the method of treatment in 
general, even where the same topics are handled, is so 
far different from his, as perhaps better to meet a cer- 
tain class of minds ; while the chief reason for another 
book is to be found in the new works, advocating anni- 
hilationism, which have appeared since Dr. Bartlett's 
book was published. 

It has been my aim to avoid acrimony and needless 
severity in the polemical part of the work. Sometimes, 
when it has been necessary to notice important mis- 
statements of facts, misinterpretations of Scripture, 
or fallacious reasoning, plain and emphatic language is 
used ; but I have not thought that the cause of truth 
would be furthered by offensive personalities, or accusa- 
tions of dishonest intentions. No good can be accom- 
plished, on the one hand, by stigmatizing men as har- 
dened and irreverent because they do not accept all the 
traditional dogmas of the Church ; nor, on the other 
hand, by charging those who do accept those dogmas 
with cowardice, narrowness, or an unwillingness to 
judge evidence fairly. Whether the conclusions to 
which I have come are correct or not, it is to be hoped 



PREFACE. vii 

that this work will at least stimulate some to a more 
careful study of the word of God, and so may lead 
them nearer to Him who is the Way, the Truth, and 
the Life. 

C. M. M. 

AsHDOTZB, MjlBB., Maxch, 1879. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER I. 

PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 

Statement of the General Rules. — Dr. Ives's Law of the Lit- 
eral and the Figurative: Vagueness and Insufficiency of 
it. — His own Application of it illustrated in Reference 
to Gen. ii. 5, 7 1-10 



CHAPTER n. 

THE OLD-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF MANS SPIRIT- 
UAL NATURE. 

The Materialistic Doctrine of the Soul stated. — The Argu- 
ments for it. — The Old-Testament Doctrine: Meaning of 
Nephesh, N^shamah^ and Ruahh. — Ruahh and Nepkesh 
compared. — Meaning of Leb, RaJiamim, MeHm, EPlayoth, 
axiCLBeten. — Conclusion 11-32 

CHAPTER HI. 

THE NEW-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF MAN'S SPIRIT- 
UAL NATURE. 

Meaning of Pgyche and Pneuma. — Psyche and Pnexima com- 
pared. —Mr. Heard's Trichotomy. — The Real Distinc- 
tion.— Meaning of iTardm, iVb«8, &c 33-67 

ix 



X TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER IV. 

DR. IVES'S DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL. 

He makes the (Sow? the same as Or^/am'sm. — Criticism: His 
Argument derived almost wholly from the Old Testa- 
ment. — He misstates the Original Meaning of Nephesh. 
— He is Wrong in his Definition: Nephesh does not mean 
Organism. — He insists that "Soul" must be made to 
mean "Organism." — He insists on the Biblical Termi- 
nology as a Universal Standard. — He confines himself to 
One Word (Soul), and neglects to give the Meaning of 
Others, especially " Spirit " 58-74 

CHAPTER V. 

BIBLICAL PROOF THAT BODY AND SPIRIT ARE 
DISTINCT. 

Preliminary Statements. — The Essential Indestructibility 
of the Soul not maintained. — The Term "Annihilation- 
ism," how used and understood. — Different Views of 
Annihilationists respecting the Soul. — The Bible has 
Distinct Terms to denote the Body and the Spirit. — In 
this Respect, like the Language of Men in General. — Dr. 
Ives understands Men generally to say what they do 
not mean. — Use of Personal Pronouns a Proof of the 
Distinction: Illustration from Dr. Ives's Argument from 
the Use of the Pronouns. — Biblical Passages proving the 
Distinction 75-101 

CHAPTER VL 

BIBLICAL PROOF THAT HUMAN EXISTENCE IS NOT 
TERMINATED AT DEATH. 

Discussion of Passages implying the Continued Existence 
of the Spirit after Death, especially in Reply to Dr. Ives's 
Efforts to evade their Significance: The Rich Man and 
Lazarus. — Christ's Argument with the Sadducees. — 
The Raising of Samuel. — The Transfiguration. — Christ's 
Answer to the Thief. — Phil. 1. 21-23.-2 Tim. iv. 6.— 
2 Cor. V. 1-8. — 1 Pet. iii. 18-20. — Heb. xii. 1, 23. —Rev. 
vi. 9,10 102-138 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. XI 

CHAPTER Vn. 

THE OLD-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE CONCERNING THE 
STATE OF THE DEAD. 

Further Considerations indicating that Death was not re- 
garded as the End of Existence. — Connection of the 
Jews with the Egyptians. —The Practice of Necromancy. 

— The Dead said to "go unto," or "sleep with," or 
"gathered unto," their Fathers. — The Description of 
SJieol: Criticism of Dr. Ives's Statements respecting it. 

— Bihlical Passages examined: Gen. v. 24; Ps. xlix. 15, 
Ixxiii. 24, xvi. 10, 11. —The i?ep^aim. — Passages seeming 

to imply the Non-Existence of the Dead . . . 13^166 



CHAPtER Vm. 

THE NEW-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE CONCERNING THE 
STATE OP THE DEAD. 

The Intermediate State as described in the Passages dis- 
cussed in Chapter VI. — No Passage in the New Testa- 
ment affirming the Cessation of Consciousness. — The 
"Sleep" of Death: Dr. Ives's Strange Interpretation of 
it. — Hades, the Abode of the Dead, especially of the 
"Wicked. — Alleged Proof of Anniliilation from Acts ii. 
34 and 1 Cor. XV. 17, 18 167-184 



CHAPTER IX. 

THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. 

What is raised at the Resurrection? Not the Identical Body, 
but the Same Person with Another Body: Criticism of 
Dr. Ives's Theory. — Biblical Evidence of the Univer- 
sality of the Resurrection. — The Resurrection as a Whole 
still Future. — The Resurrection of Men dependent on 
that of Christ. — The Resurrection-Body of Believers like 
that of Christ. — Spiritual Connection between Christ's 
Resurrection and that of Believers. — The Doctrine of the 
Resurrection, how far revealed in the Old Testament . 185-220 



XU TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER X. 

LIFE AND DEATH, — THE LITERAL SENSE. 

Definition of ** Life: " Three-fold Distinction in the Literal 
Sene.e, which is " Vitality." — Biblical Terms for " Life," 
Nephesh, Psyche, Ruahh, Pneuma, Hhayylm, Zoe, Bios. — 
Definition of " Death," the Loss of Vitality, not of Ex- 
istence. —Dr. Ives's Self-Contradictions. — Mr. White's 
Definition of "Life" criticised. — Dr. Whiton's Miscon- 
ception of the Orthodox View. — Recapitulation . 221-251 

CHAPTER XI. 

LIFE AND DEATH, — TROPICAL SENSES. 

Tropical Senses of "Life:" "Animation;" Life = Right 
Life; Life = Happy Life; "Life" applied to other than 
Organic Things, to the Soul, or to God; " Live " = " Spend 
Life . " — Tropes in the Bible : Life = Vigor ; Life = Normal 
Life; Life = Enjoyment; Life attributed to God, the Soul, 
&c.; " Live " = " Spend Life." — Tropical Senses of 
"Death:" " Dead " = " Inoperative," or that which re- 
sembles Death. — Biblical Tropes: Death = Cause of 
Death; Death=the Danger of Death; Death of " Souls," 
"Heart," "City,"&c.; Dead Faith and Works; "Sin 
was Dead," Rom. vii. 8; "I died," vii. 9; Death 
= Insensibility; "Dead unto Sin," Rom. vi. 2, &c.: Mr. 
Davis's Evasion of the Meaning 252-276 

CHAPTER XH. 

LIFE, THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

Spiritual Well-Being expressed in the Bible by the Term 
** Life." — This Sense derived naturally from the Literal 
Sense, "Vitality." — The Claim of Annihilationists that 
they always adhere to the Literal Sense shown to be In- 
correct; Departures from the Literal Sense resorted to 
by them. — Spiritual Life is a Present Thing, and con- 
sists in a New Religious State: Biblical Proof. — Dr. Ives 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. xili 

on Regeneration. —Mr. Pettingell's Treatment of the 
Doctrine of the New Life. — Mr. White's Mode of ex- 
plaining the Biblical Language : The Figure of Prolepsis. 
— Mr. Hudson on Rom. viii. 6. — Virtual Concessions of 
Messrs. White and Hudson. — Eternal Life called a Pres- 
ent Possession of Believers. — Eternal Life as a Future 
Experience. — "Life" described as Something still Fu- 
ture. — The Different Representations harmonized. — Im- 
possibility of understanding them if "Life" means 
" Existence." — Mr. White's Admission that the Notions 
of Blessedness and Holiness are associated with that of 
Life: Fallacy of it on his Theory. —The Old-Testament 
Use of the Word "Life." — "Life" there often denotes 
Continuance of Life on the Earth; also it denotes a 
Prosperous Life on Earth; sometimes it is Symbolic of 
all Prosperity, and denotes especially the Divine Favor. 
— The New-Testament Doctrine found germinally in the 
Old. — Annihilationism finds no Support in these Pas- 
sages 276-321 



CHAPTER XIII. 

DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

Antithetic to Life. — A Present Condition of the Unregener- 
ate. — Biblical Passages adduced. — Mr. White's Resort to 
Prolepsis. — Death as a Future Condition, both a Result 
and a Penalty of Sin. — Biblical Conception of Sin as its 
own Avenger. — Synonymous Terms, " Destruction," &c. 
— Destruction also described as a Present Condition. — 
The Natural Mortality of Man: Mr. Hudson's View; Mr. 
White's View; Mr. Pettingell's View; Dr. Ives's View. 

— The Tree of Life. — What is meant by Natural Ten- 
dency to continue in Existence. — The Annihilationists 
virtually aflBrm the Natural Immortality of Man. — The 
Question is simply an Exegetical One. — Alleged Literal 
Sense of the Word " Death." —The Absence of Figurar 
tive Vitality not Identical with Loss of Literal Existence. 

— Mr. White's Argument: Literal Death which is not 
Actual. — Alleged Miraculous Suspension of Annihila- 
tion.— Mr. White's Argument from Plato's Phaedo.— 



XIV TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

His Arguntent from the Death of Christ.— Recapitula- 
tion: No Proof of Literal Extermination being given, 
the Presumption is that the Soul continues to exist. — 
Proof that "Death" is often used in the Bible in a 
Spiritual Sense. — Dr. Ives on John xi. 25, 26.— The 
phrase eis ton aiona. — The Abolition of Death. — Paul's 
Flexible Use of the Term " Death." —Death as an Evil 
consequent on Sin, the Generic Idea in the Biblical Use 
of the Term. — Death expressly defined in the Bible as 
Something else than Annihilation. — The Punishment of 
Sinners declared to be Eternal. — The Fire and the 
Worm.— Mr. White on Matt. xxv. 46. — The Word 
"Eternal." — Dr. Whiton's Definition of "Eternal." — 
Why Death is not called Eternal. — Passages in Kevela- 
tion. — Manner in which the Annihilationists evade the 
Meaning. — Dan. xii. 2. — Isa. Ixvi. 24 in its Relation to 
Markix. 48. — Other Passages. — Conclusion . . 322-409 



CHAPTER XIV. 

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 

Arbitrariness of Annihilationists in the Interpretation of 
Figurative Language. — Illustration from Dr. Ives. — Mr. 
White's Material Fire, which is yet Spiritual. — The Zeal 
for Literal Interpretation exhausts itself in the Proof 
that " Life " and " Death " are Literal. — The Argument 
from New-Testament Greek. — Alleged Presumption that 
the Doctrine of Eternal Punishment, if True, must have 
been taught more early and universally. — Annihilation 
as a Doctrine for Missionaries. — Argument from Reason. 
— Alleged Incredibleness of the Doctrine of Eternal 
Punishment. — Character of Modern Scepticism. — What 
is the Penalty of Sin ? — Annihilation, or the Fear of it, 
or the Antecedent Suffering? — Inability of Annihila- 
tionists to agree on this Question. — The Bible the Ulti- 
mate Authority. — Weak Arguments for the Biblical 
Doctrine no Disproof of it. — The Infinite Evil of Sin. — 
The Tendency of Sin to become fixed. — It is not Pos- 
sible for Reason to settle the Problem of Retribution. — 
Demonstrable Errors in the Practical Judgments of Men 



TABLE OP CONTENTS. XV 

respecting the Hi-Desert of Sin.— Unfairness of assum- 
ing that the Coarser Statements of the Doctrine of Retri- 
bution represent the Biblical Truth. —Unjust Accusations 
against those who hold the Biblical Doctrine. —Mr. Pet- 
tingell's Description of the Advocates of the Doctrine. — 
The Proper Spirit to be cherished in discussing the Sub- 
ject. — The Justice of God a Fundamental Assumption 
on any Theory 410-443 




THE SOUL HEKE AND HEREAFTEE. 



CHAPTER I. 

PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 

IN entering upon a study of any such theme as 
the one here proposed, it is fitting to state at 
the outset what principles and methods should be 
adopted in elucidating the biblical doctrine. The 
matter, however, is not very complicated ; and 
among those who hold to the divine authority of 
the Scriptures (and it is for such that this work is 
chiefly designed) there prevails now a good degree 
of unanimity as to this point. The following 
things only need be noted : — 

1. The English Bible is a translation from the 
Hebrew and Greek languages. One important 
question, therefore, and one which concerns the 
whole book, is, whether the meaning of the ori- 
ginal is correctly given in our version. This 
is a question to be decided only by philological 
scholais. 

1 



2 PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 

2. The inspiration of the Scriptures being as- 
sumed, it follows that no substantial disagreement 
among the several writers on any important matter 
is to be found; and that, therefore, inclividual ex- 
pressions and statements, which seem to conflict 
with others, are to be judged and modified accord- 
ing to the general drift of scriptural teaching, 
provided this can be done without a violent per- 
version of its meaning. 

3. The main object of the Bible being the reve- 
lation of religious truth, it should not be studied 
as a general storehouse of miscellaneous informa- 
tion ; and what is said on other than religious 
subjects should be regarded as subordinate and 
subsidiary to the main design. 

4. In other respects, the Bible is to be inter- 
preted as we interpret other books. Its language, 
like the language of men in general, should be 
understood according to its apparent meaning; 
according to the general drift of the context ; 
according to the general drift of the writer ; ac- 
cording to the general laws of language. 

Any more specific rules than these can hardly 
be of much service in the study of the Bible. It is, 
however, of immense importance to bring to this 
study a devout spirit, — a spirit in sympathy with 
that of the Bible itself. He who has this, and 
combines with it the helps of scholarship and 
sound common sense, cannot go far astray. 

Dr. Ives, in his " Bible Doctrine of the Soul," 



DR. IVES'S RULE OF INTERPRETATION. 3 

lays down one principle as the all-sufficient and 
infallible guide in the interpretation of the Bible. 
It is this: " The literal meaning takes precedence 
in all cases ; so that the possibility of its being 
intended must be exhausted before a figurative 
meaning can be considered " (p. 22). 

It becomes at once manifest that this principle 
is designed by the author to have special applica- 
tion to the scriptural use of the terms " life " and 
" death." He evidently thinks that the adoption 
of this principle virtually settles the main question 
in dispute. While he concedes that there are 
passages in which " death " or " dead " is figura- 
tively used, he holds that in all such cases we 
must so interpret them, simply because we are 
obliged so to do in order to make good sense. 

We shall see, at a later point, how much or how 
little is thus gained by him for his main position. 
We are here concerned with the principle as a 
principle of interpretation. As such, we must pro- 
nounce it — though, of course, not without an 
important element of truth — to be entirely insuf- 
ficient as a general guide. There are in particular 
two defects in it, -which make it quite unequal to 
the office for which it is recommended. 

1. Dr. Ives does not define the meaning of the 
term " figurative." He uses it as the opposite of 
" literal," or " natural." He gives as a specimen 
of it (Isa. Iv. 12) ; « All the trees of the field shall 
clap their hands." Here, he says, we must under- 



4 PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 

stand the language as figurative. Very true. But 
Dr. Ives also uses the terms "metaphorical," 
•' secondary," " derived," " remote," to denote the 
meanings which words have other than the pri- 
mary meaning. Are these meanings " figurative," 
or "literal"? We are left quite in the dark. 
The truth is, there are comparatively few words 
in any language which do not have more than one 
distinct meaning. Undoubtedly every word had 
originally one literal meaning. In many cases 
this so-called etymological (radical) meaning can 
be traced. Very often it is involved in doubt. 
But what we are chiefly concerned with is the 
actual meanings of words; and these, as we have 
said, are generally various. One of these may be 
called the literal meaning : but this may, or may 
not, be the primary meaning ; for that may have 
become wholly obsolete. Thus, when we use the 
word "holy," who thinks of it as meaning originally 
" whole " ? But is the ordinary meaning of " holy " 
to be called figurative ? Of course not. " Right " 
means primarily " straight," and we still speak of 
a " right line ; " but, when we apply the same term 
to moral conduct, no one would think of calling 
this a figurative use of it. 

All terms e-xpressive of abstract relations or 
purely intellectual and ethical conceptions were 
originally used of material and physical things. 
Sometimes (as in the case of "pure") the primary 
and the tropical use exist side by side. In other 



DR. IVES'S RULE EXAMINED. 5 

cases the original meaning is nearly or wholly- 
lost. When men first began to apply the word 
" right " to moral conduct, that use of it may have 
been properly termed figurative; but so soon as 
the sense of the primary meaning became lost, 
and men, in using and hearing the word, did not 
think of physical straightness as the proper mean- 
ing of the word, the use of it in a moral signifi- 
cance was no longer figurative. That is a figura- 
tive use of language which consists in a compara- 
tively exceptional and striking use of a word to 
denote something which it does not in ordinary 
use denote, but to which, by an effort of the im- 
agination, it may be conceived to bear some resem- 
blance. 

2. But, assuming that there need be no question 
as to what is meant by figurative language, we 
have yet to observe that Dr. Ives's rule for detect- 
ing it is inadequate. We are to exhaust, he says, 
the possibility of the literal meaning being in- 
tended before assuming a figurative meaning. To 
this we have to say, — 

a. There may be more than one literal mean- 
ing, if by this is meant (as seems to be implied) 
simply the opposite of figurative. It may be a 
question which " literal " meaning is meant. Thus 
by the word *'door" we sometimes designate the 
aperture through which a room is entered, and 
sometimes the structure by which the aperture is 
closed; but, though one of these senses may have 



6 PKINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 

been secondary to the other, neither the one nor 
the other can properly be called a figurative use of 
the word. Both are literal. When Christ says, " I 
am the door of the sheep," his language is figura- 
tive, pointing to one of these literal meanings; 
but it might be equally well used figuratively with 
reference to the other sense. 

h. But the chief difficulty with Dr. Ives's 
principle is, that, after all, every man must decide 
for himself whether the possibility of the literal 
meaning is exhausted. Thus, suppose we are to 
interpret John vi. 53, " Except ye eat the flesh of 
the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no 
life in you." Dr. Ives would say, with other 
Protestants, that this cannot be understood liter- 
ally ; but the Roman Catholics think that it can 
be, through the doctrine of transubstantiation. To 
them the possibility of a literal interpretation ex- 
ists. It is simply a case of difference of opinion. 
The " law of the literal and the figurative " does 
not of itself decide the case. Every thing depends 
on our application of the law. 

It is not, therefore, quite accurate to say that 
the possibility of the literal meaning being in- 
tended must be exhausted before we resort to a 
figurative interpretation. When Christ says (Luke 
vi. 20), "Blessed be ye poor; for yours is the 
kingdom of God ; " and (vi. 24) " Woe unto you 
that are rich ! for ye have received your consola- 
tion," — it is certainly J?os8^% to understand him 



DR. IVES'S RULE EXAMINED. 7 

literally, to understand him as giving an unquali- 
fied promise of salvation to all poor men as such, 
and to pronounce an unqualified sentence of con- 
demnation on all rich men as such. Some have so 
interpreted these passages. And Dr. Ives's rule 
of interpretation would require us so to interpret 
it; and yet we doubt whether he himself would 
call this a correct interpretation. 

The simple truth is, every man must decide, 
as best he can, not only whether the strictly literal 
interpretation is possible^ but whether it is, on the 
whole, reasonable and probable ; and on this point, 
in particular cases, opinions will vary. When, 
therefore. Dr. Ives holds up his great " law of the 
literal and of the figurative " as removing all am- 
biguity from the Bible, if men would only use it, 
his real position amounts simply to this, — that aU 
ambiguity is removed, if only Dr. Ives's rule of 
intrepretation is applied in Dr. Ives's way. But 
the world in general will not be likely to regard 
this solution of all difiiculty in the exposition of 
the Bible as entirely satisfactory. 

That this language is not too strong will appear, 
we think, from the following specimen of his ap- 
plication of his rule of interpretation. Gen. ii. 
7, he says, even on the ground of " modern theolo- 
gy," decides against the immateriality of the soul ; 
for, even assuming that man is a compound of 
soul and body, we are obliged, he says, by this 
passage, to reason thus : " Man was formed of the 



8 PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 

dust of the ground. But man is soul and body : 
therefore soul and body were formed of the dust 
of the ground " (p. 35). This conclusion, says 
our author, can be evaded only by resorting to the 
theory of figurative language, — " the one resource 
for all these difficulties." Modern theology " can 
only say the word ' man ' [what was formed of the 
dust of the ground] in tliis passage does not mean 
man. It is figuratively used for the body alone " 
(Ibid.'). To prove the wrongfulness of this. Dr. 
Ives appeals to Gen. i. 26, 27, and Gen. ii. 5, where 
the word " man " is used literally, and then asks, 
" Will the meaning of the word, thus established 
in its literal signification, be changed in the im- 
mediate connection — the next verse but one — to 
a figurative use, to mean only a part of the indi- 
vidual, and especially when a somewhat minute 
account of the individual's formation is being 
given ? " 

We must confess that we cannot see the force 
of this reasoning ; for, according to Dr. Ives him- 
self, the word " man " is used in these two contig- 
uous verses in two very different senses. In ii. 5 
we read, " There was not a man to till the ground." 
This, says our author, " is literal. The mere body 
could not till." And yet in ver. 7 we are told 
that the '' lifeless form " was man. Could that 
lifeless form till the ground ? If not, is the word 
"man" used literally, or figuratively? There 
seems to be no way of understanding the argument 



DR. lYES'S RULE ILLUSTRATED. 9 

here except thus: It is wrong in the author's 
view, as being a resort to the assumption of figu- 
rative language, to suppose that the word " man " 
can at one time be used for the mere body, and 
immediately before for the body as possessed of 
a soul ; but it is entirely legitimate for the word 
to mean in one verse the lifeless form, and, just 
before, the living form ! The absence or presence 
of life would seem, according to this, to be of no 
consequence whatever. This is all the more as- 
tonisliing when we learn from the same authority 
(p. ii), that, according to the Bible, "death 
means death, the loss of existence." When a man 
is drowned beyond the possibility of resuscitation, 
says Dr. Ives, he becomes "a dead soul, as was 
Adam when our Maker formed him of the dust of 
the ground, ere he breathed into his nostrils the 
breath of life, by which he became a live, a living 
soul" (pp. 115, 116). So, then, since death means 
non-existence, a dead soul is a non-existent soul : 
and yet, to use the same word at one moment of an 
existent being, and at the next of a non-existent 
one, is quite legitimate ; but to* apply the same 
word to a body and to a body possessed of a soul 
is to be denounced as an evasive and trickish use 
of language ! 

We dwell the longer on this point, as it is fun- 
damental to the whole argument of the book. Man 
was man, we are emphatically told, before he was 
made a living soul. This lifeless form was precisely 



10 PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 

the same thing as a human form is after its life is 
lost ; i.e., it was a " dead soul." But death means 
non-existence. Therefore, before this form was 
animated, it was a non-existent soul. " Man was 
man ; " but he was a non-existent man ! In other 
words, man did not exist till the human form was 
animated ; which certainly sounds much like say- 
ing that there was no man till there was a live 
man. And yet in the same breath we are assured 
that man was man before he became existent, and 
ordinary readers of the Bible are sharply rebuked 
for supposing that this non-existent man was any 
thing less than man at the outset. This is what is 
called a literal interpretation of the Bible ! 



THE MATERIALISTIC DOCTRINE STATED. 11 



CHAPTER II. 

THE OLD-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OP MAN'S SPIR- 
ITUAL NATURE. 

THE preceding chapter has incidentally brought 
to light a doctrine concerning the human soul 
which is advocated by Dr. Ives and many other 
men, who yet unqualifiedly accept the Bible as 
absolutely authoritative. That doctrine, briefly 
stated, is this : There is no real distinction be- 
tween the soul and the body. The body is the 
soul, and the soul is the body. " All that the Bible 
has to say of a soul, we say of an organism. It ap- 
pertains to man and to all animals. It is material ; 
it is liable to death" (p. 105). The word "or- 
ganism " is an exact synonyme for the " soul " of 
the Bible. Hence death is the end of human 
existence. In short, the doctrine is that of pure 
materialism. 

This doctrine is not only held by men who 
believe in the Bible, but it is put forth as being 
pre-eminently the doctrine of the Bible. It is 
thought to be proved by such arguments as the 
following: 1. Man is said. (Gen. ii. 7) to have 



12 OLD-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL. 

been made of the dust, and to have become a liv- 
ing soul : therefore the soul is " dust-made, or 
material" (p. 322). 2. Man is said to be buried. 
The person is put into the grave : for it is said, 
e.g., "Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou 
return " (Gen. iii. 19) ; " When I go down to 
the pit [or grave] " (Ps. xxx. 9). Therefore it is 
said the soul, the person, is the bodily organism. 
3. The soul is expressly said to die, or to be killed: 
as, e.g. (Lev. xxiv. 17), " He that Idlleth any soul 
of man " [E. V., " any man "] ; (Num. xxiii. 10), 
"Let me [Heb., "my soul"] die the death of 
the righteous." Hence it is inferred that the soul 
is that which dies. 4. The soul is nowhere, as 
distinct from the body, declared to be immortal or 
imperishable. Hence, since the soul is sometimes 
said to die, and is never said to be immortal, it 
must be inferred that the current notion of a soul 
surviving the death of the body is opposed to the 
Bible. 

This, we think, is a fair, though succinct, state- 
ment of the essential features of the doctrine in 
question, and of the arguments for it. Before 
undertaking a direct criticism of it, we will first 
examine the Bible itself with a view to deriving 
from it the inspired doctrine concerning what is 
variously called the soul, mind, spirit, — the higher 
or immaterial part of man. Having taken a com- 
prehensive survey of the biblical representations 
of the human spirit, w€ shall then be better able 



MEANING OF NEPIIESn (SOUL). 13 

to pass judgment upon the doctrine above set 
forth. In the present chapter we will confine our- 
selves to a consideration of the terminology of the 
Old Testament. 

There are three words that deserve special at- 
tention, — nephesh^ n'shamah^ and ruahh. As to 
their radical meaning, they are essentially the 
same, the words denoting primarily breath, or 
wind. 

1. The one most frequently used is nephesh : it 
is used more than seven hundred times. Accord- 
ing to all lexicographers, the several* meanings of 
the word are (1) breath; (2) life, like the Latin 
anima, originally breath, secondarily life ; (3) like 
the Latin animus, the soul, especially as the seat of 
the thoughts, emotions, and desires ; (4) a living 
being, especially a human being. For proof of 
this analysis, we need only refer to the lexicons 
most in use, and of recognized superior authority ; 
viz., those of Gesenius and Fuerst. In the pri- 
mary sense the word is actually used in our Bible 
only once ; viz. (Job xli. 21), " His breath kindleth 
coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth." In 
the second sense it is used very frequently, and is 
then commonly rendered " life " in the English 
version ; e.g., Lev., xvii. 11, " The life of the flesh 
is in the blood." 1 Kings xix. 4, " O Lord, take 
away my life." In many cases, when the word 
has this meaning, it is rendered in our version by 
" soul." Thus Job xxvii. 8, " What is the hope 



14 OLD-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL. 

of the hypocrite . . . when God taketh away his 
soul ? " In Lev. xvii. 11, above quoted, nephesli is 
rendered in one clause by " life," and in another 
by " soul : " " The life of the flesh is in the blood, 
and I have given it to you upon the altar to make 
an atonement for your souls." 

The third sense is still more common. As cor- 
responding to the Latin animus^ it most frequently 
denotes the seat of desire, affection, and emotion ; 
including, however, even the physical appetites. 
Thus, in the more physical sense. Num. xxi. 5, 
" Our soul loatheth this light bread." Deut. xii. 
20, "When . . . thou shalt say, I will eat flesh, 
because thy soul longeth for flesh, thou mayest eat 
flesh, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after." More 
commonly, however, it is used in the higher sense 
of the sensibilities. E.g. : Gen. xlii. 21, " We saw 
the anguish of his soul." Deut. vi. 5, " Thou shalt 
love the Lord with all thine heart, and with all 
thy soul." Judg. xvi. 16, "His soul was vexed 
unto death." 1 Kings xi. 37, "According to all 
that thy soul desireth." Job iii. 20, "Wherefore 
is light given to him that is in misery, and life 
unto the bitter in soul? " Job xxx. 25, " Was not 
my soul grieved for the poor ? " Ps. xxxv. 9, " My 
soul shall be joyful." Ps. xlii. 2, " My soul thirst- 
eth for God." Ps. Ivii. 1, " My soul trusteth in 
thee." Ps. Ixxxviii. 3, "My soul is full of 
troubles." In this sense nephesh is sometimes 
rendered in our Bible by "heart;" as 1 Sam. ii. 



MEANING OF NEPHESII (SOUL). 15 

33, " To grieve thine heart ; " or by " mind," as 
Deut. xviii. 6, " With all the desire of his mind ; " 
or by "will," as Ps. xxvii. 12, "Deliver me not 
over unto the will of mine enemies ; " or by " de- 
sire," as Mic. vii. 3, " He uttereth all his mischiev- 
ous desire ; " or by " lust," as Exod. xv. 9, " My 
lust shall be satisfied upon them ; " or by " appe- 
tite," as Prov. xxiii. 2, " If thou be a man given 
to appetite ; " or by " pleasure," as Jer. ii. 24, 
" That snufFeth up the wind at her pleasure." 

But nephesh is also used, though much less fre- 
quently, of the more strictly intellectual opera- 
tions. E.g. : Ps. xiii. 2, " How long shall I take 
counsel in my soul ? " Ps. cxxxix. 14, " That my 
soul knoweth right well." Prov. xix. 2, "That 
the soul be without knowledge it is not good." 
Lam. iii. 20, " My soul hath them still in remem- 
brance." 

It is not difficult to see the connection between 
the several meanings of this word. Breathing is 
the most essential thing to the maintenance of 
physical life. When the breath ceases to be 
drawn, life comes to an end. It is natural, there- 
fore, that the impalpable, mysterious principle of 
life should, in the infancy of language, be denoted 
by the invisible element which is perceived to 
be most essential to the preservation of life. 
Again: the appetites, feelings, passions, and per- 
ceptions are manifestations of living beings. They 
are closely connected with the physical nature as 



16 OLD-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL. 

vitalized. Thus we use tlie word "animated" 
(properly meaning " endued with life ") to denote 
a peculiar manifestation of feeling. So we speak 
of one as of lively affections ; we speak of having 
a living interest in a subject. The possession and 
manifestation of passions and desires is so essen- 
tial a characteristic of living creatures, that it is 
natural by one and the same word to designate 
the life and that which is the sign of life. 

We pass on now to notice the fourth meaning 
of nephesh. From the meaning " life " the transi- 
tion to that of " living being " is easy enough. 
In our own language " life " is seldom used in this 
sense ; and yet we do sometimes so speak, as when 
an infant is called " a young life," or when we 
speak of land or water as "teeming with life." 
In Hebrew nephesh is very often used in this 
sense. Thus used it corresponds precisely to the 
word amma?, which means "possessed of amma," 
— life. Our Bible commonly retains the word 
" soul " as the rendering of nephesh in this sense, 
but occasionally substitutes for it the term "per- 
son." We quote some examples: Gen. xlvi. 15, 
" All the souls of his sons and his daughters were 
thirty and three." Exod. i. 5, " All the souls that 
came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls." 
Lev. iv. 2, " If a soul shall sin through ignorance." 
Lev. vii. 18, " The soul that eateth of it shall bear 
his iniquity." Num. xv. 30, " The soul that doeth 
aught presumptuously, ... that soul shall be cut 



MEANING OF NEPHESII (SOUL). 17 

off from among his people." Josh. xx. 3, " The 
slayer that killeth any person . . . may flee 
thither." 1 Sam. xxii. 22, " I have occasioned the 
death of all the persons of thy father's house." 

In a few instances nephesh is used to denote 
beasts. In this sense it is almost always con- 
nected with the adjective "living." E.g.: Gen. 
i. 24, " And God said, Let the earth bring forth 
the living creature after his kind." Similarly 
Gen. ii. 19; ix. 10, 12, 15, 16. In Num. xxxi. 
28 beasts and men are associated, and nephesh 
(E. v., *'soul ") used of both together. 

In a few cases, also, nephesh is applied to the 
bodf/, even when lifeless. This seems very strange, 
inasmuch as the word predominantly denotes life^ 
or living beings. Sometimes, when used of a 
corpse, nephesh has joined to it the epithet " dead." 
E.g.: Lev. xxi. 11, "Neither shall he [the high 
priest] go in unto any dead body.'''' So Num. vi. 6. 
At other times nepJiesh is used alone in the same 
sense. Thus Num. v. 2, " Command the children 
of Israel that they put out of the camp every 
leper, and every one that hath an issue, and who- 
soever is defiled by the dead " (literally, " defiled 
in respect to a nephesh "). Similarly Num. vi. 11, 
ix. 6, 7, 10 ; Hag. ii. 13. 

It is to be noticed, however, with reference to 
these latter instances, that the connection always 
suggests that nephesh is used elliptically in the 
sense of " dead nephesh,^^ The passages have ref- 



18 OLD-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL. 

erence to ceremonial defilements which could be 
contracted only by contact with a corpse. The 
usage is similar to ours, according to which we 
speak of medical men dissecting a body: it is 
taken for granted that the body is dead. Or, to 
take a still better illustration, it is as when we 
speak of the stuffed animals of a museum. An 
animal, strictly speaking, is a living thing; yet 
we speak of a dead animal, and of the lifeless body 
as the animal. Precisely so nephesh, meaning an 
animal or a living person, was exceptionally used 
of the form of the animal after the life was gone. 

From the foregoing discussion it appears that 
the central notion of nephesh is that of life, vitality; 
and that the bodily frame, as the vehicle of life, as 
the animated thing, as the organ of the feelings 
which betoken the presence of life, was prominent 
in the mind when the nephesh was spoken of. 
This word was, therefore, an appropriate one to de- 
note the whole man as a complex being, consisting 
of body and soul. Accordingly, sometimes it is 
appropriately rendered by " self." E.g. : Esth. ix. 
31, " As they had decreed for themselves [marg., 
"their souls"] and for their seed." Prov. xiv. 
10, " The heart knoweth his own bitterness " (lit- 
erally, "the bitterness of its soul"). So Jer. 
xxxvii. 9, " Deceive not yourselves." 

This substitution of the personal pronoun for 
the word nephesh might be carried much farther. 
In fact, in the great majority of instances, the 



MEANING OF NEPHESH (SOUL). 19 

phrases, " my soul," " his soul," &c., are nothing 
more than periphrastic expressions for " I," " me," 
" he," " him," &c. ; and where it stands alone, as 
we have seen, it might be translated "person " or 
" man." Begin, e.g., with the Psalms, and make 
the proposed substitution in every case, except in 
those passages in which nepJiesh means "life," and 
observe how almost uniformly the substitution 
might be made without any real modification of 
the sense. Ps. iii. 2, " Many there be which say 
of my soul [of me]. There is no help for him in 
God ; " vi. 3, " My soul is [I am] also sore vexed ; " 
vi. 4, " O Lord, deliver my soul [me] ; " vii. 2, 
" Lest he tear my soul [me] like a lion ; " vii. 5, 
" Let the enemy persecute my soul [me] ; " x. 3, 
"The wicked boasteth of his heart's [his own] 
desire;" xi. 1, "How say ye to my soul [me], 
Flee as a bird ? " xi. 5, " Him that loveth violence, 
his soul [he] hateth ; " xiii. 2, " How long shall I 
take counsel in my soul [in myself] ? " xvi. 10, 
" Thou wilt not leave my soul [me] in hell ; " xvii. 
9, where the English version reads " deadly ene- 
mies" (i.e., enemies against my soul), the exact 
translation is doubtful, — we cannot, at any rate, 
here substitute the pronoun ; xvii. 13, " Deliver my 
Boul [me] ; " xix. 7, " The law of the Lord is per- 
fect, converting the soul," — here the true meaning 
is, " restoring life ; " xxii. 20, " Deliver my soul 
[me] from the sword ; " xxii. 29, " And none can 
keep alive his own soul [himself] ; " xxiii. 3, " He 



20 OLD-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OP THE SOUL. 

restoreth my soul," — the same as xix. 7, properly 
"restoretli my life;" xxiv. 4, "Who hath not 
lifted up his soul [himself] unto vanity ; " xxv. 1, 
" Unto thee, O Lord, do I lift up my soul [myself]," 
• — though here the change is less easy; xxv. 13, 
" His soul [he] shall dwell at ease." We might 
keep on; but this is sufficient to illustrate the 
point. The word nephesJi became equivalent to our 
word " self." 

This signification of nephesh accounts for the 
excessively frequent use of the word. The cor- 
responding word (^psyche) in the New Testament 
cannot generally, like nephesh^ be replaced by the 
personal pronoun. Hence it is used, not only ab- 
solutely, but relatively, vastly less often than 
nephesh. 

It is in the light of this use of the word that we 
are to judge those few passages in which the ne- 
phesh is spoken of as dying ^ or being killed. E.g. : 
Num. XXXV. 30, " Whosoever killeth any nephesh " 
(E. v., "person"). Judg. xvi. 30, "Let me 
[Heb., "my soul"] die with the Philistines." 
These expressions are no stranger than those above 
quoted, i-n which the Hebrew has "my soul," 
where we should naturally only say " I." They 
no more prove that the Old-Testament writers re- 
garded the soul as mortal than the same is proved 
by the current language of all nations, according 
to which men say, "J shall die," ''^ He is dead." 
This is a universal mode of speech. These pro- 



MEANING OF NEPHESH (SOUL). 21 

nouns denote the person ; and yet the death is not 
commonly understood to apply to the whole per- 
son in such a sense as it applies to the body. If 
these few instances in which the nephesh is de- 
scribed as dying prove that what we call " the soul " 
is essentially mortal, it is equally easy to prove 
from certain other passages that it is not mortal ; 
for we read in Gen. xxxv. 18, respecting Rachel's 
death, "As her soul was in departing [literally, 
was going out] (for she died)." The soul's going 
out of the body is here made identical with dying. 
In like manner, when Elijah raised to life the dead 
son of the woman of Zarephath, he prayed (1 
Kings xvii. 21, 22), "O Lord my God, I pray 
thee, let this child's soul come into him again. 
And the Lord heard the voice of Elijah ; and the 
soul of the child came into him again [returned 
into him], and he revived [lived]." The mate- 
rialistic doctrine that the soul is mortal cannot be 
reconciled with these statements, according to the 
literal tenor of them ; for here dying is occasioned 
by the soul's going out of a man, and life is re- 
stored by its coming back. Is it a dead soul, which, 
returning to a dead body, revives it ? If not, then 
the nephesh is represented as having a separate ex- 
istence. Yet we lay no special stress on such lan- 
guage, since nephesh here may mean only life. But 
it would be as fair to argue from this that the ne- 
phesh is immortal as to argue from the other pas- 
sages that it is mortal. 



22 OLD-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL. 

When now we consider the Hebrew word ne- 
phesh with reference to translation into English, it 
is manifest that we have no exact equivalent. It 
must be rendered variously, according to the vary- 
ing shades of meaning which it bears in the origi- 
nal. It is certain that our word " soul," though 
the one most frequently used for it in our Bible, is 
far from representing it. By " soul " at present is 
ordinarily meant an immaterial and imperishable 
part of man, distinct from the corporeal frame : 
nephesh, on the contrary, though often verging on 
this meaning, yet generally means either more or 
less ; that is, it generally means either the sensi- 
bilities^ or it means the whole person, inclusive of 
what we call soul and body. 

2. The next word to be considered is nshamah. 
This occurs much less frequently than nephesh, be- 
ing used in all only twenty-four times. N'shamah 
is commonly rendered " breath," according to its 
etymological sense, but with special reference to life. 
E.g. : Gen. ii. 7, " The Lord God . . . breathed 
into his nostrils the breath of life." So Isa. xlii. 
5 ; 1 Kings xvii. 17. Sometimes, like nephesh, it 
is used to denote living beings; as Deut. xx. 16, 
" Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth " 
(literally, "no breath"). So also Josh. x. 40; 
xi. 11, 14. In Isa. Ivii. 16 it is rendered " souls : " 
"For the spirit should fail before me, and the 
souls which I have made." 

In none of the passages in which n^shamah de- 



MEANING OF N' SHAM AH (SPIRIT). 23 

notes a living being does it refer to brutes. The 
passages above quoted are general in form, and 
might be understood to include beasts as well as 
men : but the context indicates that notliing but 
men is referred to ; and in the parallel passage 
(1 Kings XV. 29), " He left not to Jeroboam any that 
breathed [any w'sAawaA]," it is certain that human 
beings alone are meant. It is this fact — and not 
the use of the phrase, " a living soul " — on which 
any stress can be laid in the passage, Gen. ii. 7. 
Brutes, also, are called " living souls ; " but it is 
nowhere said of brutes that God breathed into 
them n'shamah, though in one case (Gen. vii. 22) 
the phrase " rCshamah of the ruahh of life " is used 
of men and brutes collectively. 

Perhaps, therefore, no great stress ought in any 
case to be laid on Gen. ii. 7 as proving a radical 
distinction between men and brutes. But it is 
important to notice some instances in which 
rCshamah is used in a higher and more restricted 
sense. Being the favorite term by which is ex- 
pressed that in man by which he is connected with 
God as his Maker, it naturally came to be used of 
that spirit by which man is allied to God. Thus 
Prov. XX. 27, " The spirit of man is the candle of 
the Lord, searching all the inward parts of the 
belly." So Job xxxii. 8, "But there is a spirit 
\rualiK\ in man, and the inspiration {vHshamah^ of 
the Almighty giveth them understanding." Also 
Job xxvi. 4, " To whom hast thou uttered words ? 



24 OLD-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL. 

and whose spirit [i.e., inspiration] came from 
thee?" In these passages (especially the first) 
rCshamah denotes the self-conscious, intelligent 
principle ; and it is nowhere used, like nephesh^ 
of the animal passions and appetites. 

3. Much more important, and more frequently 
used, is the word ruahh, generally rendered 
"spirit." 'It occurs about three hundred times, 
and of these about seventy times of the Divine 
Spirit. This word is used frequently in its pri- 
mary sense of " wind ; " as Gen. viii. 1, " God made 
a wind to pass over the earth." Then, like nephesh 
and rCshamah^ it was also employed to denote life, 
the vital principle. E.g. ; Ps. civ. 29, "Thou takest 
away their breath [ruaJiK] ; they die, and return 
to their dust." But in this sense ruaJih occurs 
very seldom. Perhaps this passage, and Gen. vi. 
17, vii. 15, 22, Eccles. viii. 8, Job xii. 10, xxxiv. 
14, 15, are all in which it can be so understood. 
Some would include also Eccles. iii. 21, xii. 7. 
But in all these passages it is to be noticed that 
ruahh is used with special reference to a something 
in man, the removal of which is followed by death, 
and with special reference to the divine power as 
that alone which gives and preserves it. Nowhere 
is it used in such expressions as " fled for his life," 
" take his life." In fact it is never rendered by 
" life," and never ought to be ; but it is some- 
times used of the spirit in the lower sense of ani- 
mation^ or feeling of life. Thus, after Samson had 



MEANING of' i?tLlirZf (SPIRIT). 25 

grown faint through thirst, it is said of him ( Judg. 
XV. 19), that, " when he had drunk, his spirit came 
again [his ruahh returned], and he revived'* 
(Uterally, "he lived"). So the same is said 
(1 Sam. XXX. 12) of David after eating. It is a 
somewhat different though analogous use of the 
word when it is said of Jacob (Gen. xlv. 27), 
" The spirit of Jacob their father revived." So of 
the Queen of Sheba, after she saw the magnificence 
of Solomon, it is said (1 Kings x. 5), "There 
was no more spirit in her." 

In one passage (Judg. viii. 3) ruahh is rendered 
" anger." It is said of the Ephraimites, in refer- 
ence to Gideon, "Then their anger was abated 
toward [their ruahh let go of] him." But this is 
is an elliptical or pregnant expression. 

In some relations ruahh and nephesh are closely 
allied in meaning. Thus we read in Job iii. 20 of 
the " bitter in soul " (nephesh^^ and, in Ps. cxliii. 4, 
of a spirit " overwhelmed ; " in Lev. xxvi. 16, 
"sorrow of heart" (nephesh') ; and 1 Sam. i. 15, 
" a woman of a sorrowful spirit " (^ruahh'). That is 
to say, ruahh is sometimes, like nephesh^ used to 
designate the seat of the emotions. Thus 1 Kings 
xxi. 5, " Why is thy spirit so sad ? " Eccles. vii. 9, 
" Be not hasty in thy spirit." So Gen. xxvi. 35 ; 
Job vii. 11 ; Dan. ii. 1. 

The predominant meaning of ruahh is almost 
precisely what is denoted by our word " spirit." 
It stands for the higher, divinely implanted organ 



26 OLD-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL. 

of thought and moral feeling. In the more strictly 
intellectual sense it is used in Job xxxii. 8: 
" There is a spirit in man, and the inspiration 
[7Cshamah~\ of the Almighty giveth them under- 
standing." Cf. ver. 18. So Job xx. 3, " The spirit 
of my understanding causeth me to answer." Pro v. 
xxix. 11, "A fool uttereth all his mind [riiahh~\y 
But the more usual sense of ruahh is disposition^ the 
seat of moral or religious character. Thus Deut. 
xxxiv. 9, " Joshua . . . was full of the spirit of 
wisdom." Ps. xxxii. 2, " Blessed is the man . . . 
in whose spirit there is no guile." Ps. li. 10, 
" Renew a right spirit within me." Prov. xvi. 2, 
"All the ways of a man are clean in his own 
eyes; but the Lord weigheth the spirits." Isa. 
xxix. 24, " They also that erred in spirit shall come 
to understanding." Isa. Ixvi. 2, " To this man 
will I look, even to him that is poor and of a con- 
trite spirit, and trembleth at my word." Ezek. 
xviii. 31, "Make you a new heart and a new 
spirit." Mai. ii. 16, " Take heed to your spirit, 
that ye deal not treacherously." So we read of 
the " patient in spirit " and the " proud in spirit " 
(Eccles. vii. 8), of a "humble spirit" (Prov. xvi. 
19), of a "faithful spirit" (Prov. xi. 13), of a 
" haughty spirit " (Prov. xvi. 18), of a " steadfast 
spirit " (Ps. Ixxviii. 8), a " spirit of jealousy " 
(Num. V. 14), a "willing [E. V., free] spirit" 
(Ps. li. 12). ' 

If now we compare nephesh with ruahh, we ob- 
serve the followiuo^ things : — 



RUAHH AND NEPHESH COMPAKED. 27 

a. Both nephesh and ruahh are used to denote 
the principle of animal life ; but nephesh in this 
sense is much the most frequent. 

b. Both words are used to denote the seat of 
emotion or passion ; but in this sense nephesh is 
the most often used. 

c. Both words are used to denote the seat of 
moral character or disposition; but in this sense 
ruahh is much the most frequently used. We 
often read, it is true, such expressions as " if a 
soul sin " (Lev. v. 1) ; but here " soul " is equiv- 
alent to " person," and we cannot use the passage 
as showing that the soul, as distinct from the spirit 
or heart or any other part of man, is that which 
sins. Perhaps Mic. vi. 7 is the only passage in 
which such a phrase as " the sin of my soul " 
occurs. 

d. Both words are used in descriptions of men 
and of God : but, while nephesh is used hundreds 
of times of the human soul, it is only a very few 
times used of God, and then as an equivalent of 
" self ; " whereas ruahh is the distinctive term for 
the Spirit of God. 

e. Nephesh often denotes the man as a whole, 
and consequently is sometimes spoken of as mor- 
tal : ruahh is not so used, and is never said to die 
or perish. 

Besides these three words, there are some others 
used in a similar sense, but originally used to de- 
note certain bodily organs. 



28 OLD-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL. 

4. The most important of these is leh (or lebah')^ 
commonly translated " heart." In its literal sense 
it is nsed, so far as we know, in only three in- 
stances, — 2 Sam. xviii. 14 ; 2 Kings ix. 24 ; Ps. xlv. 
5. It occurs about eight hundred times. It is 
very comprehensive in meaning, covering all acts 
and states of the inner man. Thus it stands for 
the will, as the seat oi purpose and moral character, 
and so is used like ruaJih. E.g. : Ps. li. 10, " Create 
in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit 
within me." Ezek. xxxvi. 26, " A new heart also 
will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within 
you." In this sense the word is used in Eccles. 
viii. 11, " The heart of the sons of men is fully set 
in them to do evil." So Eccles. ix. 3. Isa. x. 7, 
" It is in his heart to destroy and cut off nations." 
So we read of the " upright in heart " (Ps. vii. 10, 
xxxii. 11, xxxvi. 10), of "a rebellious heart " (Jer. 
Y. 23), of a " wicked heart " (Deut. xv. 9),^of a 
"perfect heart" (2 Kings xx. 3), of "pride of 
heart" (2 Chron. xxxii. 26). 

' Still more often, perhaps, the " heart " is spoken 
of, like nephesh, as the seat of the emotions, both 
the higher and the lower. Thus Job xxix. 13, " I 
caused the widow's heart to sing for joy." Ps. 
xvi. 9, " Therefore my heart is glad." Judg. xvi. 
25, " Their hearts were merry." Neh. ii. 2, " Sor- 
row of heart." Lam. i. 22, " My heart is faint." 
The heart "loves" (Deut. vi. 5), "hates" (Lev. 
xix. 17). In a few cases the word has reference 



MEANING OF LEB (HEART). 29 

to the feeling of physical strength : as Gen. xviii. 
5, "Comfort [strengthen] ye your hearts [with 
bread] ; " and Judg. xix. 5, " Comfort [strengthen] 
thine heart with a morsel of bread." 

The " heart " is, in the Old Testament, the only 
word which corresponds to our word " conscience." 
Thus it is said of David (1 Sam. xxiv. 5), "David's 
heart smote him because he had cut off Saul's 
skirt ; " and 2 Sam. xxiv. 10, " David's heart smote 
him after that he had numbered the people." 

Very frequently also the "heart" corresponds 
to what we call the mind^ or intellect. E.g. : Judg. 
V. 15, " There were great thoughts of heart." ' 1 
Sam. i. 13, " Now Hannah, she spake in her heart." 
1 Sam. xxvii. 1, " David said in his heart ; " i.e., 
he thought. In fact, this is the specific way of ex- 
pressing the meaning of our word " think." See, 
e.g.. Gen. xxvii. 41 ; Ps. liii. 1, Ixxiv. 8. In the 
phrase, " Set the heart upon," the word means 
" mind." Thus Job xxxiv. 14, 15, " If he set his 
heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit 
and his breath, all flesh shall perish together." The 
meaning is, "If he turn his attention to man." 
In Job i. 8 the same phrase is rendered " consider " 
in our Bible : " Hast thou considered my servant 
Job ? " It might well be also in Exod. vii. 23, 
ix. 21 ; Job vii. 17. It is the heart which "medi- 
tates " (Ps. xix. 14, xlix. 3), which " devises " 
(1 Kings xii. 33), -which " understands " (Isa. vi. 
10), which " knows " (Eccles. vii. 22, 25, viii, 5), 



30 OLD-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL. 

wliich "consults" (Neh. v. 7). Several times leh 
(or lehah^ is even translated by our word " under- 
standing : " viz., Job xii. 3, xxxiv. 10, 34 ; Prov. 
vi. 32, vii. 7, ix. 4, 16, x. 13, xii. 11, xv. 32, xvii. 
18, xxiv. 30; Jer. v. 21. We read often of an 
*' understanding heart " (1 Kings iii. 9 ; Prov. viii. 
5, ii. 2), or of a heart of " wisdom " (Prov. xi. 
29; Ps. xc. 12; Prov. xxiii. 15 ; Eccles. viii. 16). 
And so when " wisdom " is used in the lower 
sense of " skill ; " as Exod. xxviii. 3, xxxv. 10, 25, 
xxxvi. 1, 2. In a few cases leh is translated " wis- 
dom ; " as Prov. x. 21, xix. 8. 

From the foregoing it is obvious that the word 
" heart," in the Old Testament, is by no means the 
equivalent of "heart" as commonly used by us. 
Sometimes it corresponds to our word ; very often 
it does not. It embraces in its use the whole 
range of mental, moral, and emotional activities 
of man. While nephesh ("soul") is most promi- 
nently used of the emotional nature, and ruahh 
(" spirit ") of the moral nature, leb (" heart ") 
more than either of the others is used of the more 
strictly intellectual operations. 

There are a few other words, primarily the 
names of bodily organs, which are occasionally 
employed to denote the organ of mental or moral 
activities. 

5. The word rahamim — a plural form, the sin- 
gular of which means " womb " — has in the plural 
form the more general sense of " bowels," but is 



OTHER PSYCHOLOGICAL TERMS. 31 

always used in the tropical sense of "compassion." 
The literal sense appears perhaps, to some extent, 
in such passages as Gen. xliii. 30 and 1 Kings iii. 
26, where our Bible has the phrase "his (her) 
bowels yearned." More often, however, the word 
is rendered " mercy " '(Isa. xlvii. 6), " mercies " 
( Jer. xvi. 5), " tender mercies " (Ps. xl. 11, ciii. 4), 
or " compassion " (1 Kings viii. 50), or " compas- 
sions " (Lam. iii. 22), and has exclusive reference 
to the emotion indicated by these words. 

6. Another word, also meaning "bowels," or 
" inward parts," and commonly rendered " bowels," 
is meHm, This, however, is most frequently used 
in the physical sense : as in 2 Chron. :^i. 19, " His 
bowels fell out by reason of his sickness ; " or Ps. 
Ixxi. 6, " Thou art he that took me out of my moth- 
er's bowels." Sometimes, however, it is used tropi- 
cally : as Jer. xxxi. 20, " My bowels are troubled 
for him : I will surely have mercy upon him." 
Once, however, it denotes, not a feeling of com- 
passion, but the inner man more generally as the 
seat of the religious apprehensions and affections ; 
viz., Ps. xl. 8, "Thy law is within my heart" 
(marg., "in the midst of my bowels "). 

7. Another word to be here noticed is Tclayoth^ 
meaning "kidneys." This is often found in the 
literal sense: as Exod. xxix. 13; Lev. iii. 4, 10, 15; 
Isa. xxxiv. 6, &c. It is used figuratively in*Deut. 
xxxii. 14, " The fat of the kidneys of wheat ; " i.e., 
the kidney-fat of wheat, — the richest wheat. Fre- 



82 OLD-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL 

quently, however, like " heart," it is represented as 
the organ of thought or feeling, and is then, in our 
Bible, translated " reins." E.g. : Ps. vii. 9, " God 
trieth the heart and reins." So Ps. xxvi. 2 ; Jer. 
xi. 20, xvii. 10. Prov. xxiii. 16, " My reins shall re- 
joice." Ps. Ixxiii. 21, " Mj heart was grieved, and 
I was pricked in my reins." Ps. xvi. 7, "My reins 
also instruct [admonish] me in the night-season." 

8. The word heten^ commonly meaning, and com- 
monly rendered, either " womb " or " belly," is a few 
times used figuratively for the mind or the heart. 
Thus Job XV. 35, " Their belly prepareth deceit." 
So Prov. xxii. 18 ; xx. 27, 30 ; xviii. 8 ; xxvi. 22. 

In conclusion, we remark, that, while no sharp 
distinction between these various terms is uni- 
formly preserved, yet nephesh^ ri'shamahySiJid ruahh 
may be said to denote the spirit of man as an 
entity ; the other words, the spirit as a faculty. 
The former (never the latter) are all used to 
denote the vital principle by which lifeless dust 
is made into living beings, but denote further the 
higher principle (peculiar to man), which we call 
the rational soul: more particularly, n^shamah 
denotes the spirit abstractly, as the rational part 
of man which allies him with God; rualih^ the 
spirit or mind concretely, as the seat of thought 
and character in manifestation ; nephesTi^ more com- 
prehertsively the person^ inclusive of physical as 
well as spiritual affections. Leh^ &c., correspond 
rather- to our words consciousness^ will, &c. 



MEANING OF PSYCHE (SOUL). 33 



CHAPTER III, 

THE NEW-TESTAMENT DOCTEINE OF MAN's SPIR- 
ITUAL NATURE. 

LBT US now turn to the New Testament, and 
examine its language in this relation. We 
find a general correspondence between the two 
Testaments. Following the same order as before, 
we notice, — 

1. The word corresponding to the Hebrew ne- 
phesh ; viz., psyche. It is most frequently rendered 
"soul," but not much less frequently "life;" once 
(Eph. vi. 6) "heart;" once, with a preposition, 
" heartily " (Col. iii. 23) ; and three times (Acts 
xiv. 2, Phil. i. 27, Heb. xii. 3) "mind." It occurs 
about one hundred times. 

Its primary sense, like that of nephesh, is 
" breath ; " but it is nowhere found in the New 
Testament in this sense. 

Next it denotes the principle of physical life. 
E.g. : Acts XX. 10, Paul says of Eutychus, " His 
life is in him." Rev. xii. 11, "They loved not 
their lives unto the death." John x. 11, "The 
good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep." 



34 NEW- TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL. 

Kom. xvi. 4, " Who have, for my life laid .down 
their own necks." Matt. ii. 20, "They are dead 
which sought the young child's life." Matt. vi. 
25, " Take no thought for your life, what ye shall 
eat, or what ye shall drink." 

Then, like nephesh^ it denotes the soul^ or the 
seat of the affections (more exactly represented by 
our word "heart"). E.g.: John xii. 27, "Now is 
my soul troubled." Matt. xxvi. 38, " My soul is 
exceeding sorrowful." Luke xii. 19, "Soul, . . ., 
take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry." ^Heb. 
xii. 3, "Lest ye be wearied and faint in jouv 
mindsy Matt. xxii. 37, "Thou shalt love the 
Lord thy God . . . with all thy soul." Some- 
times it denotes the whole of the higher part of 
man : as when it is said of the elders of the church 
(Heb. xiii. 17), " They watch for your souls ; " or 
(Jas. i. 21), "Receive with meekness the engrafted 
word, which is able to save your souls." 

Then again, like nephesh^ it sometimes denotes 
a living being. Rev. xvi. 3, " Every living soul 
died in the sea." Here it is used of the lower 
animals. Generally, however, only of men : as 
Acts ii. 43, "Fear came upon every soul; " vii. 14, 
"All his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls." 
1 Pet. iii. 20, " Eight souls were saved by water." 
But it is never, like nephesh^ used of a dead body. 

2. The most important and most frequently em- 
ployed word in this relation is pneuma^ commonly 
translated " spirit." It occurs, in all, about' three 



MEANING OF PNEUMA (SPIKIT). 35 

hundred and seventy-five times. In a considera- 
ble majority of these cases (about two hundred 
and thirty) it has reference to the Spirit of God, 
or the Holy Spirit. In about forty cases it is used 
of demons, evil " spirits." In a few cases (five 
or ten, not to decide on certain doubtful passages) 
it denotes a spirit, neither specifically divine nor 
human nor demoniacal. There remain, therefore, 
about one hundred instances in which it has refer- 
ence to human beings. 

The primary sense of pneuma, as of the Hebrew 
word ruaJih and our word "spirit," is "breath," 
or " wind." In one passage (John iii. 8) it retains 
its original meaning, and is rendered " wind " in 
our version. In 2 Thess. ii. 8 it seems properly 
to mean "breath," though rendered "spirit." 

Pneuma next was used to denote the principle 
of life. In one passage (Rev. xiii. 15) it is so 
rendered in our Bible ; and in some others it has 
reference to the vital principle, though rendered 
" spirit " in our Bible. E.g. : Luke viii. bb^ it is 
said of the ruler's daughter, when raised from the 
dead, " Her spirit came again." Similarly the word 
is used in Rev. xi. 11 and Jas. ii. 26. So in the 
j)hrase, " give up the ghost," in such passages as 
John xix. 30 ; Matt, xxvii. 50. These, with per- 
haps one or two others, are, however, the only 
instances of this sense of the word in the New 
Testament. 

Ordinarily pneuma is used, as ruahh is in the 



56 NEW-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL. 

Old Testament, to denote the seat or organ of the 
mental, and especially the moral and religious, 
activities of man. A most emphatic and impor- 
tant passage is 1 Cor. ii. 11 : " What man knoweth 
the things of a man, save the spirit of man which 
is in him?" There could not well be a clearer 
statement of the proposition that the spirit is the 
organ of self-consciousness. A similar sense be- 
longs to the word in Rom. viii. 16 : " The Spirit 
itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are 
the children of God." The organ by which we 
apprehend the Divine Spirit's testimony concerning 
our state is our spirit. So the spirit is that which 
purposes (Acts xix. 21) and perceives (Mark ii. 8). 
The same general sense belongs to the word 
where we read of the spirit as contrasted with 
the body. E.g. : 1 Cor. v. 3, " For I verily, as ab- 
sent in body, but present in spirit, have judged 
already." All the powers of the mind, the 
thoughts, the apprehension of the circumstances 
and relations of the Corinthian church, the faculty 
of judging, — all this was designated by the term 
"spirit," and by this as something distinct from 
the body. The same conception lies in the word 
in the next verse. So 1 Cor. vii. 34, "That she 
may be holy both in body and in spirit." Matt, 
xxvi. 41, " The spirit indeed is willing, but the 
flesh is weak." Cf. Mark xiv. 38 ; Luke i. 80, ii. 
40 ; 2 Cor. vii. 1 ; Col. ii. 5. This same contrast 
of the spirit with the body, or flesh, is involved in 



MEANING OF PNEUMA (SPIKIT). 37 

those passages in which the word " flesh " is used 
in a pregnant sense to denote sinfulness, or sinful 
tendencies. E.g. : Gal. v. 17, " For the flesh lust- 
eth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the 
flesh." Rom. viii. 9, " But ye are not in the flesh, 
but in the Spirit." Such a tropical use of the word 
implies, that, in the more literal sense of the two 
words, there must also have been a distinction 
and contrast. 

Sometimes the pneuma is spoken of as the seat 
of emotion. E.g. : John xi. 33, " Jesus . . . groaned 
in the spirit ; " xiii. 21, " He was troubled in spirit." 
Similarly Mark viii. 12 ; Acts xvii. 16 ; Luke i. 47, 
X. 21. 

More commonly, however, when used of men, 
pneuma denotes the seat of moral, and especially 
religious, character. E.g. : Luke ix. K)b^ " Ye know 
not what manner of spirit ye are of." Rom. i. 9, 
" God is my witness, whom I serve with [in] my 
spirit." 1 Cor. xiv. 14, " My spirit prayeth." Acts 
xviii. 25, Rom. xii. 11, "'Fervent in the spirit." 
John iv. 24, " They that worship liim must worship 
him in spirit." 1 Cor. iv. 21, Gal. vi. 1, " The spirit 
of meekness." 1 Cor. vi. 20, " Glorify God in your 
body, and in' your spirit." 2 Cor. iv. 13, "We 
having the same spirit of faith;" vii. 13, "His 
spirit was refreshed ; " xii. 18, " Walked we not in 
the same spirit ? " Gal. vi. 18, " The grace of our 
Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit." Cf. 2 
Tim. iv. 22. Eph. iv. 23, "Be renewed in the 



88 NEW-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL. 

spirit of your mind." 1 Pet. iii. 4, " A meek and 
quiet spirit." Heb. xii. 23, "The spirits of just 
men made perfect." 

In this connection we may notice how the human 
and the divine spirit are so blended, that often it is 
difficult .to decide whether the one or the other is 
meant. In fact, perhaps we may say that some- 
times, in a certain sense, both are meant in a single 
use of the word. The higher religious life of man 
is represented as produced by the influence of the 
Holy Spirit. The Spirit of God becomes an inmate 
of the human spirit. Thus Rom. viii. 11, "If 
the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the 
dead dwell in you ; " viii. 14, " As many as are 
led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of 
God." 1 Cor. ii. 12, " We have received, not the 
spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of 
God ; " iii. 16, " Know ye not that ye are the tem- 
ple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in 
you?" Consequently, in such passages as Rom. 
viii. 4, " Who walk not after the flesh, but after 
the Spirit," commentators differ as to whether the 
human or the divine spirit is meant. So Gal. v. 16, 
25, "Walk in the Spirit." Eph. iv. 3, "Endeavor- 
ing to keep the unity of the Spirit in»the bond of 
peace." There is here no sharp distinction main- 
tained between the Spirit that produces the new 
life and the new spiritual life that is produced. 

It is from this conception of the regenerate life, 
as produced by the Spirit of God, that the adjective 



PSYCHE AND PNEUMA COMPARED. 39 

"spiritual" (^pneumatikos) comes to be used to 
characterize the renewed man. E.g. : 1 Cor. iii. 
1, " I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto 
spiritual, but as unto carnal.'* Gal. vi. 1, " If a 
man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual 
restore such an one." So 1 Cor. ii. 15, xiv. 37. 
These, however, are the only passages 'in which 
the adjective is directly applied to persons. Else- 
where it is used of things ; as, " gi^t " (Rom. i. 11), 
"drink" (1 Cor. x. 4), "body" (1 Cor. xv. 44), 
"songs" (Eph. V. 19), &c. 

Before speaking of other terms by which the 
incorporeal part -of man is designated in the New 
Testament, it may be well here to compare more 
particularly the " soul " and the " s]3irit," with a 
view to determine whether, and how far, they are 
distinguished. 

a. In reference to both words, we must remember 
that they have a lower and a higher sense. Both 
psyche and pneuma are used to denote vitality, the 
principle of animal life. So psyche is used, e.g., in 
Rev. viii. 9 ; Acts xx. 10, xxvii. 10. So pneuma 
in Matt, xxvii. 50 ; Luke viii. 55 ; Jas. ii. 26. But 
they are both used in a very different and higher 
sense. Thus the psyche is that which is the organ 
of emotion and the seat of character. Acts xiv. 2, 
"The unbelieving Jews . . . made their minds 
(Gr., psychos^ evil affected against the brethren." 
Rom. ii. 9, " Every soul of man that doeth evil." 
So pneuma : Acts xvii. 16, " His spirit was stirred 



40 NEW-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL. 

within him." Acts xix. 21, "Paul purposed in 
the spirit." 

h. Both words are sometimes used to designate 
man as a whole in the sense of " person." Thus 
psyche : Acts ii. 41, " There were added unto them 
about three thousand souls." So Acts vii. 14, xxvii. 
37; Rom. xiii. 1. Likewise pneuma: 1 John iv. 
1-3, "Believe not every spirit." . . . Every spirit 
that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in 
the flesh is not of God." This, however, is the 
only case: and here there is a reference to the 
spirit of man as inspired to prophesy ; so that, per- 
haps, it cannot properly be adduced at all. Huahh, 
it will be remembered, is not used in this Way; 
though nephesh is so used very largely. 

e. Both words are used to denote that in man 
which is distinguished from the body. Thus psyche : 
Matt. X. 28, " Fear not them which kill the body, 
but are not able to kill the soul." So pneuma : 1 
Cor. V. 3, " As absent in body, but present in spirit." 
In this sense pneuma is much the most frequently 
used. 

d. Both words are used to designate that which 
constitutes the man after the death of the body. 
Thus psyche : Rev. vi. 9, " I saw under the altar 
the souls of them that were slain for the word of 
God." So XX. 4. Likewise pneuma : Heb. xii. 23, 
" The spirits of just men made perfect." 1 Pet. 
iii. 19, " He went and preached unto the spirits in 
prison." Whatever may be the correct interpreta- 



PSYCHE AND PNEUMA COMPARED. 41 

tion of this difficult passage, there can be little 
doubt that the phrase " spirits in prison " denotes 
those who, after death, are imprisoned in Hades. 

e. Both words are used to denote that in m^n 
which needs to be, and is, renewed by the gospel. 
Thus psyche: 1 Pet. i. 22, " Seeing' ye have purified 
your souls in obeying the truth." The soul, like- 
wise, is said to be liable to be " subverted " (Acts 
XV. 24) and "beguiled" (2 Pet. ii. 14). So the 
pneuma is spoken of: 2 Cor. vii. 1, "Let us cleanse 
ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit." 
Eph. iv. 23, " Be renewed in the spirit of your 
mind." 

The opinion advocated by many (e.g., by Weiss, 
» Biblische Theologie des N. T.," p. 24T), that the 
pneuma does not belong to the natural man at 
all, but only to the regenerate, though not without 
plausibility, can hardly be substantiated. The 
passages just quoted speak of the spirit as capable 
of being defiled, and as in need of being cleansed. 
If the spirit were something belonging to men only 
as regenerate^ then such language could hardly be 
used. Even though the regenerate man might be 
spoken of as still affected by evil passions, and in 
need of more perfect purification, yet the spirit — 
if by that is meant simply what comes to a man 
by virtue of regener9,tion — would not be so de- 
scribed. Moreover, such passages as 1 Cor. ii. 11, 
1 Cor. V. 3, in which the pneuma is described as 
the organ of intelligence and self-consciousness, 



42 NEW-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL. 

and all passages in which the pneuma is represented 
as the seat of emotion and of moral disposition (as 
Matt. V. 3, xxvi. 41 ; Acts xviii. 5 ; 1 Pet. iii. 4), 
show conclusively that it is something which, as a 
faculty, belongs to man's constitution. Indeed, it 
is almost inconceivable that what the spirit is rep- 
resented as being in the renewed man can be sup- 
posed to be an outright addition to man's natural 
faculties. Regeneration is not the creation or su- 
pernatural impartation of new powers: it is a 
change in the direction and use of the powers 
already ours. If we cannot be converted without 
receiving a new mental outfit, then we can hardly 
be blamed for being wicked. It is the perversion., 
not the noTi-possession, of a spiritual nature, that 
sinners are to blame for. 

/. Both words are used to denote that which is 
saved from death through faith in Christ. Thus 
psyche : Jas. v. 20, " He which converteth the 
sinner . . . shall save a soul from death." 1 Pet. 
i. 9, "Receiving the end of your faith, even the 
salvation of your souls." So Matt. xvi. 25 ; John 
xii. 25. Likewise pneuma : 1 Cor. v. 5, " To de- 
liver such an one under Satan for the destruction 
of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the 
day of the Lord Jesus." 

The foregoing comparison of psyche and pneuma 
may seem to indicate that the two words are exact 
synonymes. And it certainly must be insisted that 
the biblical usage does not warrant the sharp dis- 



MR. HEAKD'S TRICHOTOMY. 43 

tinction which is often made between the soul and 
the spirit. When, e.g., it is said, that, according 
to the Bible, the soul is that which man has in 
common with the brute, — ^ viz., an animal nature, 
involving passions, desires, and more or less of in- 
tellect, — while the spmt is that by which man is 
distinguished from the brute, being the seat of 
conscience and of the knowledge of God (as, e.g., 
in Dr. Mark Hopkins's book, "Strength and 
Beauty "), we must reply, that this distinction is 
wholly without biblical foundation. Nowhere is a 
beast said to have a psyche^ still less a psyche con- 
ceived as the organ of desire and intelligence: 
while the psyche of man is described as the very seat 
of religious character ; e.g., Eph. vi. 6, " Doing the 
will of God from the heart [psyche'].^'' And nowhere 
is it so used as to refer especially to the intellect. 
j^^'Mt. Heard, in his book on the " Tripartite Na- 
ture of Man," adduces a few passages, which, to his 
mind, are absolutely conclusive as to this distinc- 
tion between soul and spirit. Let us examine them. 
The first is 1 Thess. v. 23 : "I pray God your 
whole spirit and soul and body may be preserved 
blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus 
Christ." This, he says (p. 74), " teaches us that 
there are three parts in man, and not two only ; 
thus setting at rest the controversy whether the 
dichotomist or trichotomist view of human nature 
be that of Scripture." But, to say nothing of the 
circumstance that this is the only passage in which 



44 NEW-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL. 

this combination of words occurs, the mere fact 
that these three parts are mentioned^ though it 
does follow a prayer that the Thessalonians may- 
be "wholly" sanctified", does not by any means 
prove that such a distinction is taught as Mr. 
Heard assumes. It might almost equally well be 
proved from Matt. xxii. 37 that the religious nature 
of man consists of three distinct parts, — the heart, 
the soul, and the mind, — because Christ says, 
" Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy 
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." 
Such language is nothing but an accumulation of 
various words, which may or may not be some- 
what synonymous, for the sake of emphasis and 
fulness. Just so the Psalmist says (Ixxxiv. 2), 
" My soul longeth, yea, even fainteth, for the courts 
of the Lord ; my heart and my flesh crieth out for 
the living God." Would it be reasonable for a 
trichotomist to argue from this that the Bible 
makes man's nature tripartite, consisting of flesh, 
heart, and soul ? 

The next passage is Heb. iv. 12 : " The word of 
God is quick [living] and powerful, and sharper 
than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the di- 
viding asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints 
and marrow." But this does not mean, and does 
not say, that the soul is separated from the spirit. 
Mr. Heard says, however, that it does mean that 
the word of God separates between them; but it 
does not say even that. It simply says that the 



MR. HEARD'S TRICHOTOMY. 46 

word of God divides both soul and spirit. As a 
sword may be conceived as piercing even into the 
joints and marrow of the body, so the word of 
God penetrates into the very inmost part of man. 
This statement is immediately followed by another : 
" And is a discerner of the thoughts and intents 
of the heart." If, because we read of " soul and 
spirit " in the preceding clause, we are to assume 
that they form two of the essential and distinguishr 
able parts of man, then the "heart" here men- 
tioned ought to be regarded as another such part. 
The case here is precisely as in 1 Thess. v. 23 : 
different words denoting the seat of the mental 
and religious activities are heaped together for the 
sake of emphasis. 

The other passages adduced as decisive of a dis- 
tinction between the soul and the spirit are those 
in which the adjectives psychikos and pneumatikos 
are used. The first is found six times : it is ren- 
dered four times " natural," and twice " sensual." 
The first case is 1 Cor. ii. 14 ; " The natural man 
receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; 
. . . neither can he know them, because they are 
spiritually discerned." And in ver. 15 it is added, 
" But he that is spiritual judgeth all things." Here 
undoubtedly there is a contrast, and not mere jux- 
taposition; and the spiritual is made decidedly 
superior to the psychical. But the very fact that 
this distinction is clearly found only in the adjeo- 
lives weakens much the force of the argument. 



46 NEW-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL. 

Our own language illustrates this point. By a 
spiritual man we mean a man of peculiarly high 
religious character ; but a man of spirit is a very 
different character. A spiritual man is not a 
psychical man; but surely a spiritual man still 
has a psyche. The same contrast is found in 
1 Cor. XV. 44, 46, in reference to the " natural " 
and "spiritual" body. In Jas. iii. 15 we read 
of the wisdom which is " earthly, sensnal [psychi- 
cal], devilish;" and, in Jude 19, of men "who 
separate themselves, sensual [psychical], having 
not the Spirit." 

But, even if it were true that the New-Testa- 
ment writers were trichotomists, we should still 
have to decide the question, what these three words 
denote in biblical use. Mr. Heard says that " body " 
denotes "sense-consciousness;" "soul," "self-con- 
sciousness;" and "spirit," " God -consciousness " 
(p. 351, etpassirn). He makes "soul" cover the 
intellectual nature of man in general. These dis- 
tinctions are certainly arbitrary. Biblical usage 
furnishes no warrant for them. It is remarkable 
that " soul " (^nep>hesh, psyche}, when not denoting 
the person in general, predominantly designates 
the emotions or sensibilities ; whereas the intellect is 
represented rather by " heart " (leb^ kardld), or, in 
the New Testament, by " mind," " understanding " 
(nous}. In general, "soul" comes much nearer 
what Mr. Heard seems to mean by " sense-con- 
sciousness " than the word "body" does. More- 



IklR. HEARD VEIiSUS PAUL. 47 

crv^er, no clearer definition of the faculty of self- 
consciousness could be given than Paul gives in 
1 Cor. ii. 11 ; yet here, according to him, it is the 
spirit, not the soul, that " knoweth the things of a 
man." The manner in wliich Mr. Heard refers to 
this passage (p. 70) is significant. After quoting 
it, he says, " ' But God,' he [Paul] adds, ' has re- 
vealed them to us by his Spirit.' " This statement 
of Paul's, however, is not added to, it precedes, 
ver. 11, where Paul speaks of " the things of a 
man." *Mr. Heard thus makes the passage illus- 
trate his statement, that the pneumatical "knows 
itself because it' knows God," while the psychical 
'•knows neither itself nor God," by making the 
impression that " them " in ver. 10 refers to " the 
tilings of a man " in ver. 11 ! This is amazing. 
The things which God is said in ver. 10 to have 
revealed to us by his Spirit are described in ver. 
9 as the "things wliich God hath prepared for 
them that love him." This is repeated in ver. 12, 
where we read that "we have received . . . the 
Spirit which is of God, that we might know the 
things that are freely given to us of God ;'''' and in 
ver. 14, where it is said that what the natural man 
cannot receive is " the things of the Spirit of God^ 
Nowhere does Paul say that the natural man does 
not know liimself ; while ver. 11 affirms just the 
contrary, — that the spirit of man which is in him 
does know the things of a man. (See note at the 
d of the chapter). 



48 NEW-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL. 

The case is simply this: Both pneuma and 
psyche are sometimes used in their more original 
sense of animal life ; but psyche is much the most 
often so used. Accordingly, the adjective psychi- 
hos^ corresponding precisely in meaning to the 
Latin animalis (English, "animal"), came to be 
•"used by the New-Testament writers with special 
reference to this lower sense of the noun ; whereas 
pneumatikos (" spiritual ") was more specifically 
used in reference to the higher sense of the noun : 
yet even this higher sense it has only in so far as 
the human spirit is conceived as having been re- 
generated by the Spirit of God. 

But does not the fact that so sharp a distinction 
lies in the adjectives show that there is at least 
some distinction in the nouns? Undoubtedly. 
What that difference is will appear from three 
more points of comparison. 

. g. Psyche is used rather with reference to man 
as a whole, — the natural, the animal man, inclu- 
sive of the body; while pneuma is used more es- 
pecially of that in man which is distinct from the 
body. Matt. x. 28 is the only passage in which 
the body and soul (psyche^ are sharply contrasted. 
But the spirit is contrasted with the body or flesh 
in Matt. xxvi. 41 ; Mark xiv. 38 ; Luke xxiv. 39 ; 
John iii. 6; 1 Cor. v. 3, vi. 20, vii. 34; Eph. iv. 4; 
Col. ii. 5 : not to mention some other passages, in 
which both " flesh " and " spirit," while contrasted, 
are used in a pregnant sense. In one passage the 



PSYCHE AND PNEUMA COMPARED. 49 



• 



no'ins psyche and pneuma are contrasted: viz., 1 
Cor. XV. 45, " The first Adam was made a living 
soul : the last Adam was made a quickening [life- 
giving] spirit.'^ The context speaks of the natural 
(psychical, animal) body as contrasted with the 
spiritual body, the resurrection-body. Psyche here 
then, as is seen also in Gen. ii. 7, which is here 
quoted, denotes the natural man as a whole, pos- 
sessed of this perishable bod}^ while ^>7iew?7ia is 
used of Christ as possessing and imparting a 
higher imperishable life. Such an expression as 
" Though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with 
you in the spirit" (Col. ii. 5), could hardly be 
used with " soul " substituted for " spirit." 

h. It is only another form of the foregoing dis- 
tinction when we observe that pneuma is used 
especially of God and angelic beings ; psyche being 
never so used, with one exception (Heb. x. 38), 
in which an Old-Testament passage (Hab. ii. 4) 
is quoted according to the Septuagint version, 
and in which " soul " is nothing but another word 
for " self," " my soul " being equivalent to " I." 
God is declared fo be "Spirit" by our Saviour 
(John iv. 24) ; and we read of the Spirit of God 
'nore than two hundred times. Angels also are 
ailed "spirits" by way of distinction (Heb. i. 
14). Disembodied beings, or ghosts, are so named 
' F.uke xxiv. 37, 39; Acts xxiii. 8, 9). Moreover, 

mens arc none the less called "spirits," evi- 
dently not because they are especially "spiritual" 



50 NEW-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL. 

as being holy, but because tliey have no fleshly 
bodies. 

i. In short, psyche is more comprehensive than 
pneuma. The psyche is the person^ composed of 
spirit and body. Accordingly, it is sometimes 
employed, like pneuma^ to designate the seat of 
religious character : at other times it denotes the 
passions that have a physical basis. Just as in our 
own language we use the word "person," or the 
personal pronouns, variously, sometimes referring 
to the spiritual part, at other times to the -physical, 
so it is with the New-Testament psyche. But 
pneuma is used in a more restricted sense, being 
applied only to the intellectual and ethical part of 
human nature. 

From all this it is obvious that the pneuma is 
not, as such, any more holy than the psyche. The 
"spiritual" man, who is contrasted with the 
" natural " (psychical) man in 1 Cor. ii. 14, 15, is 
so called expressly because he has "received, not 
the spirit of the world., but the Spirit which is of 
God^^ (ver. 12). There are bad spirits as well as 
good spirits. A man is spirituai, in the sense of 
being sanctified, not because he has a spirit, but 
because he has God^s Spirit in him. Because the 
natural man is characterized by a corporeal 
(fleshly) nature, and is also characterized by 
sinful tendencies and habits, the "flesh," though 
not inherently sinful, or the seat of sin (cf. John 
i. 14, Rom. i. 3, where Christ is spoken of as made 



PSTCTTE AND PNEUMA COMPARED. 51 

flesh, and Pliil. i. 22, where living "in the flesh" 
means merely this earthly life), came to be used, 
especially by Paul, as a summary designation of 
sinful propensities. God being a Spirit, and also 
holy (not holy because a Spirit), those who received 
God's Spirit were called spiritual in the sense of 
having received God's Spirit. Hence we have the 
antithesis of " spiritual " and " carnal " (fleshly) ; 
but the very fact that generally Paul uses " car- 
nal," not " animal " (^psychikos')^ as antithetic to 
" spiritual," is an indication that in his mind the 
soul (jpsyclie) was not so distinguished from the 
spirit (^fneumd) that the latter stands for a re- 
ligious disposition, and the former for a sinful one. 
In the two instances (1 Cor. ii. 14, 15 ; Jude 19) 
in which they are so contrasted, the adjective 
(^psychikos) is used; and, as we have seen, the 
spiritual man is so called as having received the 
Spirit of God. 

The higher (intelligent, moral) part of man's 
nature is, therefore, called spirit^ as being allied to 
God, who is Spirit. ]Man was created in the image 
of God (Gen. i. 27) : but the resemblance was 
not in the bodily form and functions ; for God is 
not corporeal. The resemblance must have been 
in that which we call the spirit. Both Testaments 
are full of references to God's Spirit, but almost 
never attribute to him a soul. If we bear his 
image, as in some sense even fallen man is said to 
do (Jas. iii. 9), it is as being spiritual beings like 



52 NEW-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL. 

him, possessed of capacities of thought and moral 
action, which dp not inhere in the flesh, but in the 
incorporeal soul, or spirit. Hence we see the force 
of such language as that of John iv. 24 : " God is 
Spirit, and they that worship him must worship 
him in spirit : " i.e., the worship of God is not an 
act of the hody^ depending for its value upon its 
being performed on Mount Gerizim or in Jerusa- 
lem ; but it is an act of the spirit^ that part of man 
which affiliates him with the Deity. Hence, too, 
our Saviour says (John iii. 6), respecting the new 
birth, " That which is born of the flesh is flesh, 
and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit : " 
that is, the thing born of a human body is a 
human body ; but that which comes from the re- 
generating influences of the Holy Spirit is a regen- 
erated human spirit. 

The pneuma^ or spirit, is then, according to New- 
Testament usage, that in man which is distinct 
from the body (Matt. xxvi. 41) ; is the seat of self- 
consciousness (1 Cor. ii. 11), of moral and religious 
character (2 Cor. vii. 1) ; and is renewed hy the 
Spirit of God in conversion (Rom. viii. 9, 10).^ 

1 The foregoing analysis shows how little foundation there is 
for such a statement as we find in Rev. J. H. Pettingell's Theo- 
logical Trilemma (p. 112): " The soul stands in the same relation 
to the body that the spirit does to the soul. The soul is the life 
of the body, and the spirit is the true normal life of the soul of 
man." True, the soul (psyche) is often used in the sense of life, — 
the life of the body; but so also is the spirit (pneuma) described 
in Jas. ii, 26. And where is it said that the human spirit is the 
life (normal or abnormal) of the human soul ? He says that the 



MEANING OF KARDIA (HEART). 53 

It is not something distinct from the soul ; but it is 
the soul considered in certain special relations, and 
as possessed of certain special attributes. 

This appears all the more clearly when we 
notice, that, besides psyche and pneuma^ the New- 
Testament writers use several other words to des- 
ignate the seat of mental and moral action. 

3. A word frequently used is kardia^ "heart." 
It is equivalent, in general, to the corresponding 
word (lei)) of the Old Testament. It is a very 
comprehensive word. It means more than "heart" 
does with us. It is not only the seat of affection 
and emotion ; as John xvi. 6, " Sorrow hath filled 
your heart " (cf. 2 Cor. ii. 4 ; Acts xxi. 13) : in fact, 
it is very seldom used in this sense. Nor is it 
merely the seat of religious and moral character or 
disposition ; as Matt. xv. 19, " Out of the heart pro- 
soul is "midway between" the body and the spirit, — "neither 
flesh on the one hand, nor spirit on the other; and yet it may be 
fleshly or carnal, or it may be spiritual, according to the choice 
which it makes. In the one case it is called the carnal, sensual, 
fleshly, or natural mind: ... in the other case it is called the 
•iritual mind." But, if so, why is it that we never find such an 
-presslon as "carnal soul "or "spiritual soul"? At other 
Mies Mr. Pettingell represents the "spirit" as something not 
; issessed by the natural man at all. Thus he says (p. 152) 
that the soul's " former life was a natural life only: this [the new 
life] is spiritual." And (p. 153), " The old life of the soul is 
mortal. . . . The new life in the soul is eternal, because it is 
spiritual. It is the Pncuma, the breath of God himself." Inas- 
much, then, as we naturally possess only body and soul, and these 
"in common with other animals " (p. Ill), there seems to be no 
reason why other animals, too, should not receive tYxQpneuma, and 
inherit eternal life. 



54 NEW-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL. 

ceed evil thoughts, murders," &c. Mark vii. 6, 
" Their heart is far from me." In this sense it is 
used very largely. It is from the heart that one 
truly forgives (Matt, xviii. 35). We read of purit}'- 
of heart (Matt. v. 8 ; Jas. iv. 8 ; 2 Tim. ii. 22 ; 1 Pet. 
i. 22), of sincerity or singleness of heart (Acts ii. 46 ; 
Heb. X. 22 ; Eph. vi. 5 ; Col. iii. 22). It is the heart 
that is hardened or darkened by sin (John xii. 40 ; 
Mark iii. 5; Rom. i. 21, ii. 5). The heart errs 
"(Heb. iii. 10); is deceived (Rom. xvi. 18; Jas. i. 
26) ; exercises faith (Rom. x. 9 ; Acts viii. 37, xv. 9 ; 
Luke xxiv. 25 ; Heb. iii. 12), repentance (Rom. ii. 
5 ; Acts ii. 37), and obedience (Rom. vi. 17). The 
heart is described as the very centre of the man : 
1 Pet. iii. 4, « The hidden man of the heart." 
1 Thess. ii. 4, "God, which trieth our hearts" 
(ci. Luke xvi. 15). 1 Thess. iii. 13, " To the end he 
may stablish your hearts unblamable in holiness." 

But kardia, like leh, is also used as a designation 
of the intellect. Thus Matt. xiii. 15, " Understand 
with their heart." Mark ii. 6, " Reasoning in their 
hearts." Luke ii. 19, " Pondered them in her 
heart." Luke ix. 47, " Perceiving the thought of 
their heart" (cf. Heb. iv. 12). Rom. x. 6, "Say 
not in thine heart." 1 Cor. iv. 5, " The counsels 
of the hearts." 

Kardia^ like leh^ also sometimes stands for the 
conscience ; as 1 John iii. 20, 21, " If our heart con- 
demn us. . . . If our heart condemn us not." 

4. Still another word of similar import, though 



MEANING OF NOUS (MIND). 65 

less frequently used, is nous, commonly rendered 
"mind," sometimes "understanding." It corre- 
sponds somewhat nearly in meaning to these 
words, biit is commonly used with reference to 
the perception or understanding of spiritual things. 
Thus Luke xxiv. 45, " Then opened he their un- 
derstanding, that they might understand the scrip- 
tures." In Rom. vii. 23, 25, the nous denotes the 
natural mind, or judgment, as capable of under- 
standing the right, and approving it. "I see 
another law in my members, warring against the 
law of my mind." In Phil. iv. 7, " The peace of 
God, which passeth all understanding,''' nous is 
very well represented by this word. But in Rom. 
i. 28, " God gave them over to a reprobate mind," 
the word carries with it an ethical sense, — not 
only wrong perceptions, but wrong feelings. So 
Rom. xii. 2, " B}^ the renewing of your mind." 
Eph. iv. 17, " In the vanity of their mind." 1 Tim. 
vi. 5, " Men of corrupt minds." In 1 Cor. xiv. 14 
the nous is contrasted with the pneuma : " If I pray 
in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my 
understanding is unfruitful." In general, there- 
fore, the word nous is used of the mind in its more 
reflective and judicial capacity, but includes often 
— like " spirit," " heart," " soul " — the conception 
of the moral and spiritual disposition. 

There are still other words, less often used, that 
might be mentioned ; such as dianoia (similar in 
meaning to nous^ and also rendered " mind " and 



56 NEW-TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL. 

"understanding"), noema ("mind," also kindred 
in root and sense with nous'), phronema (" mind " 
in the sense of disposition, as Rom. viii. 6, 7), 
eunoi'a (twice used, and in a similar seiise), sunei- 
desis (" conscience ") : but it is unnecessary for 
our purpose to extend this discussion. 

In general, now, we may observe that hardia^ 
nous, and these other words, though often appar- 
ently almost synonymous with pneuma and psyche, 
are not used when there is any suggestion of an 
antithesis between the mind and the body. The 
nearest approach to this is 1 Thess. ii. 17: "Being 
taken from you for a short time in presence, not 
in heart." They correspond to our own words, 
"heart," "conscience," "intellect," which are often 
comprehensively used, but yet rather as something 
possessed by, or characterizing, the person, than as 
constituting him. 

It is obvious, moreover, that none of these words 
is used with scientific precision. As with our own 
word " mind," for instance, which may mean the 
whole immaterial man (as opposed to " matter"), 
or the intellect (as opposed to the heart, the affec- 
tions), or an act or state of the will (as when we 
say, " I have a mind to go "), or a moral state (as 
when we say, "May he have a better mind"), so 
it is with these biblical words. Their meaning is 
flexible. It is only by surveying the general drift 
of biblical teaching that we can get any accurate 
knowledge of. biblical psychology. For the bibli- 



NOTE ON MR. HEARD'S BOOK. 67 

cal doctrine on this point is conveyed indirectly. 
Xo formal definitions are given. The meanings of 
the words were presumed to be intelligible to those 
who were to read them. This is not a disadvan- 
tage, perhaps ; but it should put us on our guard 
against imagining that the same word is always to 
be understood in the same sense. 

Note. — The fundamental idea of Mr. Heard's book is, 
that the soul stands midway between the body and the 
spirit, neither of the latter being able to exist apart from 
the other (p. 77). It is, perhaps, suificient to say, that this 
is pure speculation. He does not adduce any biblical proof 
of his doctrine, for the good reason that there is none to 
adduce. He does not agree with himself much better than 
with the Bible. These three parts, he says, are " not 
separable" (p. 119), and "the loss of one part would imply 
. . . the utter uselessness of the other two" (p. 118). Yet 
"the body must die, if the spirit would live" (p. 270) : the 
spirit, united to the soul, survives the death of the body, and 
in the intermediater state "attains to a higher consciousness 
than before of things unseen and eternal " (p. 2G9) ; for 
the " reason will get the victory over desire, and faith over 
reason " (p. 304). But " spirit is found only in its composite 
form, and defies our attempts to extract it pure " (p. 78). 
He uniformly represents the body as the great hinderance to 
sanctification, since it distracts the mind, and "draws us 
away from communion with Grod " (p. 270). Nevertheless, 
the doctrine of trichotomy is lauded as the only one which 
explains the resurrection of "the body. But in all these 
speculations he makes no resort to the Bible for proof. He 
gets from it the three words, " body," " soul," and " spirit," 
and then makes out of them what he pleases. 



58 DR. IVES'S DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL. 



CHAPTER IV. 

DR. IVES'S DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL. 

"TTXE are now prepared to consider whether the 
V V materialistic doctrine of the human spirit 
is the doctrine of the Bible. As we have seen, it 
obliterates the distinction between soul and body. 
" The English word organism," says Dr. Ives, " is 
the exact equivalent of the Hebrew word nephesh, 
and so is the exact equivalent of the word soul^ 
by which the Hebrew is rendered into English " 
(p. 106). He is, indeed, not able to overlook the 
fact that- this does not hold true in all cases ; and 
accordingly he states, that, besides this meaning of 
nephesh, it also has a " secondary or derived mean- 
ing," life, and " a more remote meaning," the emo- 
tions (p. 108). But he says "the Bible gives us 
as the original, the primary meaning of ' soul,' the 
organism of man and of all animals ; the concep- 
tion embracing the organization, as making up one 
entire individual. This is by far its most frequent 
meaning" (p. 107). 

In this chapter we will only make some remarks, 
in a preliminary way, on these statements. 



TOO LITTLE OF THE NEW TESTAJSIENT. 59 

1. It is inauspicious for the soundness of the 
doctrine that the biblical argument for it is found 
almost wholly in the Old Testament. In his ap- 
pendix Dr. Ives gives a full list of the biblical 
passages which he regards as substantiating his 
views. This is the exhibit : Of eighteen passages 
in which " soul " is used of the lower animals, 
only two are from the New Testament (Rev. viii. 
9, xvi. 3), and these from a book whose style is, 
to a remarkable degree, borrowed from the Old 
Testament. Of the forty-two passages adduced 
to prove the material nature of the soul, all are 
from the Old Testament; one of them only (Ps. 
xvi. 10) being also adduced as quoted in the New 
Testament (Acts ii. 27). Of the seventy-one pas- 
sages adduced in proof of the mortal nature of 
the soul, only four are from the New Testament ; 
and, of these, two are the same as are given above 
in the first list. The other two (Aets iii. 23 ; 
Jas. v. 20) prove nothing to the point. Twelve 
passages are referred to in which " soul " is used 
with reference to dead bodies. These are all from 
the Old Testament. 

Now, we have, of course, no objection to the 
Old Testament as a source of information on the 
subject of biblical psychology. It cannot be neg- 
lected. But any theory which depends for its 
support exclusively on the Old Testament is ex- 
posed to the suspicion of being false for that very 
reason. There is a presumption that a false inter- 



60 DR. IVES'S DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL. 

pretation has been at work. If it is a hihlieal 
doctrine that the soul is nothing but the bodily 
organism, then this doctrine ought especially to be 
found in that Testament in which we have the 
most perfect revelation of religious truth. When, 
now, we find that the New Testament is just the 
one which furnishes the very scantiest support for 
the theory in question, while its uniform drift is 
in just the opposite direction, there can be no 
question but that this circumstance of itself is 
sufficient to throw discredit on the whole theory. 

2. As to the question what the primary or origi- 
nal meaning of nephesh is, the Bible gives us no 
information. When Dr. Ives says that " the Bible 
gives us as the original^ the primary meaning of 
' soul,' the organism of man and of all animals," 
he makes an affirmation of which he gives no 
proof whatever. Even if we admit that some- 
times the word does have this meaning, how, we 
ask, did Dr. Ives learn that this is the original 
meaning ? This is a question for philologists and 
lexicographers to decide; and on this point, as 
we have remarked, their testimony is quite uni- 
form. They are agreed in the opinion that the 
primary sense of nephesh is " breath ; " the second- 
ary, " life ; " the third, the " seat of the emo- 
tions ; " and the last, a " living being." In this 
latter sense, when used of men, it might be gener- 
ally, as it is in our version sometimes, rendered 
** person." When used, as it sometimes is, of 



BAD ETYMOLOGY. 61 

beasts, the term " animal " would be more appro- 
priate. But this latter sense Dr. Ives, on his own 
sole authority, declares to be the primary one; 
though all scholars who may be supposed to know 
any thing about the matter call it the last of all : 
and the actual primary meaning he does not even 
mention ! This is all the more noticeable, inas- 
much as, in what he says about the kindred word 
spirit (Heb., rualih; Gt., pneuma)^ he does give the 
correct etymology ; recognizing the fact, that, " in 
the original languages, it [life] was denoted by the 
word primarily meaning 'breath,' as that is the 
outward sign or manifestation of the presence of 
the spirit, or life " (p. 39). He agrees with the 
lexicographers that the words rendered "spirit" 
primarily denoted " breath," and secondarily "life ; " 
but, when they affirm the same thing of the words 
rendered " soul," he quietly reverses the order, and 
leaves out the primary meaning altogether ! 

3. As to the question of the comparative fre- 
quency of the meaning organism, as the equivalent 
of the words rendered "soul," Dr. Ives's state- 
ment, that it " is by far its most frequent mean- 
ing," is simply amazing in its inaccuracy. He 
offers for this, also, no shadow of proof, seeming 
to think that his mere assertion is sufficient to 
demonstrate its truth. Of course the only way 
in which this question can be decided is to look 
through the Bible, and see the effect of substi- 
tuting " organism " for "soul." We cannot under- 



62 DR. IVES'S DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL. 

take to give a complete catalogue of the passages ; 
but we will give enough to show how absurd Dr. 
Ives's definition of nephesh is : " The sons of Jo- 
seph, which were borne him in Egypt, were two 
organisms " (Gen. xlvi. 27). " If an organism 
shall sin through ignorance " (Lev. iv. 2). "If 
an organism swear " (Lev. v. 4). " No organism 
of you shall eat blood" (Lev. xvii. 12). "I will 
even set my face against that organism " (Lev. 
XX. 6). " If the priest buy any organism with his 
money" (Lev. xxii. 11). "When a man or 
woman shall commit any sin, . . . and that organ- 
ism be guilty " (Num. v. 6). " The same organism 
shall be cut off from among his people " (Num. 
ix. 13). "The priest shall make an atonement 
for the organism that sinneth ignorantly " (Num. 
XV. 28). "These sinners against their own or- 
ganisms" (Num. xvi. 38). "Take heed to thy- 
self, and keep thy organism diligently " (Deut. iv. 
9). " Take . . . good heed unto your organisms " 
(Deut. iv. 15). " Let my organism die w^ith the 
Philistines" (Judg. xvi. 30). "As 'thy organism 
liveth, my lord" (ISam. i. 26). "He loved him 
as his own organism " (1 Sam. xviii. 3). "As the 
Lord liveth, who hath redeemed my organism out 
of all adversity" (2 Sam. iv. 9). " He teareth his 
organism in his anger" (Job xviii. 4). "Against 
Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified 
his organism rather than God " (Job xxxii. 2). 
" Many there be which say of my organism, There 



AKBITRARY DEFINITIONS. 63 

is no help for him in God " (Ps. iii. 2). " Thou 
hast heard, O my organism, the sound of the 
trumpet " (Jer. iv. 19). " Woe to the women that 
sew pillows to all armholes ... to hunt organ- 
isms ! " (Ezek. xiii. 18.) 

We might extend the specimens indefinitely; 
but it is not necessary. Let it be observed now 
that these are fair specimens of the passages in 
which the word has, if anywhere, according to Dr. 
Ives's classification, the meaning of organism. In 
such a passage as Ps. xlii. 6, " My soul is ' cast 
down within me," or Isa. liii. 12, " He poured out 
his soul unto death," he himself would not propose 
to understand " organism " to be the equivalent of 
the original. 

4. In fact, while we may admit that our word 
" organism " sometimes answers reasonably well 
to the Hebrew nephesh, yet, on the whole, it must 
be affirmed that this definition, so far from cover- 
ing the majority of instances, is never the true 
equivalent of the original. In the few cases in 
which the word is used of dead bodies, it may be 
conceded that " organism " seems not to be wholly 
inappropriate ; yet even here nephesh is used with 
reference to that which has been something more 
than a mere material organism. In fact, this 
usage is simply analogous to our own mode of 
speaking when we call a corpse a dead person. It 
is an exceptional mode of speech; and no one, 
^^'hen he uses it, means to be understood as saying 



64 DR. IVES'S DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL. 

that the personality consists in the mere material 
organism, apart from the intelligi3nt soul. The 
same may be said of the other few instances in 
which the adjective "living" is applied to the 
word rendered " soul." Dr. Ives lays great stress 
on this fact also, arguing, from Gen. ii. 7 and other 
passages, that man was a soul before he became 
a living soul; and inferring that, therefore, the 
proper meaning of soul (nephesK) is organism^ ir- 
respective of the question whether it is living or 
lifeless (pp. 33, 34). But the truth is, that this 
phrase is precisely equivalent to " living animal." 
The word " animal " itself means a living organ- 
ism (from anima, life). Yet, for the sake of pre- 
cision and emphasis, we may speak of a living 
animal, and, in like manner, of a dead animal ; 
though that, strictly defined, means a dead living 
organism. But the notion of life is primary 
throughout. No one ever thinks of a dead (or 
lifeless) animal but as an organism in which there 
has been life. Dr. Ives's notion that Adam was a 
lifeless organism before he became a living one is 
as ridiculous as it would be to infer, from one's say- 
ing that an acorn planted in the ground has become 
a living oak, that it had first been a dead oak. 

The fact that nephesh is, in some cases, used to 
denote beasts, does not warrant the definition " or- 
ganism." For whatever difference there may be 
between men and beasts, yet ftven the latter are 
always conceived of as possessed of a certain intel- 



m 



FALLACIOUS REASONING. 65 

ligence, of a self-moving faculty, in short, of a 
certain selfhood, which is quite distinct from the 
mere bodily structure. He who affirms that the 
prominent thought is of the material organism as 
such is simply foisting his own materialistic no- 
tions upon the Bible. He is begging the question 
in dispute. 

Nor is this question at all affected by any thing 
that may be proved or assumed respecting the 
essential mortality of man. If we should even 
concede, with Dr. Ives, that death ends uU, — that 
the soul is essentially perishable, — yet we should 
not thus identify the soul with the physical organ- 
ism. To prove that the soul dies ivith the organ- 
ism does not prove that the soul is the organism. 

5. It is a fundamental vice of Dr. Ives's reason- 
ing, that he assumes that what the Bible says of 
the nephesh or the psyche must hold true of what 
we call the soul. He says, indeed, that we have 
come to attach a different meaning to soul from 
what the Bible attributes to the nephesh; but 
this, he says, is a perversion (p. 105). "Soul," 
in his opinion, ought to mean with us what it does 
mean in the Bible. 

But all this rests on an utterly perverse notion 
respecting the relation of different languages to 
one another. Any one who has had any thing to 
do with the comparison of languages knows that 
it is seldom the case that any two of them uni- 
formly use corresponding words in the same sense. 



6Q BR. IVES'S DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL. 

No translation, therefore, can ever perfectly repro- 
duce to us a book originally written in a foreign 
tongue; and it is essentially unfair to assume 
that what is said of a particular thing in one lan- 
guage must hold true, in all respects, even of the 
nearest equivalent of that word in another lan- 
guage. Now, our word " soul " denotes the intel- 
lectual, moral, and religious nature of man, as a 
something within him which is distinct from the 
body. This is what we mean by it when we speak 
of the immortality of the soul. But it is little 
less than puerile to argue that what we call soul is 
not immortal, because what the Hehrews called 
nephesh is sometimes said to die, or to be killed. 
The thing necessary to be proved, in order to 
make this reasoning conclusive, is, that the He- 
brews meant the same thing by their word that 
we mean, or ought to mean, by ours. This is 
something which Dr. Ives simply takes for granted. 
It is something which we utterly deny. Even if 
it should be granted that nephesh does sometimes 
denote the bodily organism, yet it is little less than 
folly to argue that the English word " soul " is, or 
ought to be, used in the same sense. All this 
parade of passages, proving the mortal character 
of the nephesh^ is of no account in so far as the 
force of the argument lies in the tacit assumption 
that the Hebrew word is the exact equivalent of 
the English. The real question to be discussed is, 
whether, according to the Scriptures, our notion 



BODILY "PARTS OF THE SOUL." 67 

of the soul is correct ; and this, again, is not to be 
settled by seeing whether the Bible has a word 
exactly answering to our notion of the soul, but by 
examining whether in any way the notion is there 
conveyed. We shall soon present evidence that 
this -notion is a bibhcal one ; and, if this is proved, 
the proof will not be invalidated, even if it should 
be shown that the Hebrew word nephesh does not 
always, or even generally, correspond in meaning 
to our word soul. Yet the whole argument of Dr. 
Ives's book rests on this fallacious assumption. 

That we do our author no injustice in what we 
have said may be shown by quoting from p. 327 : 
" If the soul of man be the human organism, as 
we claim the Scriptures teach, then the various 
organs which make up the organism are parts of 
the soul; and if so, then the Bible should thus 
speak of them. . . . This is Just what the Bible 
does; though our translators, apparently puzzled 
with such language, have not always made evi- 
dent that which the original expresses." He then 
quotes a number of passages in which the heart, 
the bowels, the belly, and the kidneys are used, in 
the Bible, of the human emotions. He also brings 
in the liver by a mistranslation of a few passages 
(Gen. xlix. 6 ; Ps. xvi. 9, cviii. 1) where our Bible 
gives the correct rendering. We cannot suppress 
an expression of surprise that the Bible fails, after 
all, to come' up to Dr. Ives's requirement. The 
Bible, he says, should speak of the various organs 



68 DR. lYES'S DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL. 

of the human organism as parts of the soul. But 
nowhere is the liver so spoken of, nor the lungs, 
nor even the brain ; to say nothing of the more 
external parts of the organism, as the limbs, the 
neck, the head, the breast, &c. Dr. Ives (p. 329) 
describes the organs that are thus spoken of in the 
Bible as those which are " controlled by a special 
nervous system, the great sympathetic, which 
presides over 'organic life.'" He recognizes, as 
a physician of the nineteenth century might be 
expected to do, the supreme importance of the 
nervous system. But how does it happen that 
the Bible never mentions that, too, in its designa- 
tion of the various "parts of the soul"? Our 
author complains of ^' the inroads of philosophi- 
cal ideas during centuries past " on this mode of 
speech, but finds a little comfort in the fact that 
" heart," " spleen," and " bile " still are used to 
denote the operations of the soul. But the Bible 
contains no recognition of this important function 
of the spleen and the bile. Which is wrong, — the 
Bible, or modern speech? Not the Bible, in Dr. 
Ives's opinion; for he pronounces its psychological 
terminology the true standard for us to follow. Its 
mode of speech in this respect, he tells us, " is the 
relic of a still earlier age, when God communed 
with man face to face " (p. 830). According to 
this style of conception, we do not see why it is 
not our duty in all things to adopt the biblical 
phraseology. We ought to use the word " heart '* 



SHALL WE TALK HEBREW, OR ENGLISH? 69 

in tlie sense of " intellect ; " for, according to the 
Bible, men " understand with their heart " (Isa. vi. 
10). In fact, our authorized version needs a great 
overhauling generally. Instead, e.g., of rendering 
Gen. XXX. 2 "Jacob's anger was kindled," we 
ought to make it read " Jacob's nose burned ; " 
and similarly in hundreds of other cases where 
this phrase is used of God and men. We should 
thus be restoring to honor a much disrespected 
" part of the soul." 

It is difficult to treat otherwise than with ridi- 
cule this strange assumption which runs through 
Dr. Ives's book. Instead of recognizing the fact 
that the Hebrew language was one of the lan- 
guages of men which God's revelation found in 
existence, and which that revelation merely used^ 
he almost seems to imagine that the language was 
given by revelation as the unvarying standard ^f 
speech for all men. Thus, to give another instance 
of this singular notion, he says (p. 46), " From 
the language of Genesis already considered, we 
understand that the word soul^ applied to a human 
being, denotes the man himself. If that is the cor- 
rect meaning of the word, it should be found so 
used throughout the Bible by its different speakers 
and writers." He then quotes a number of pas- 
sages illustrating this use of the word soul^ and 
particularly passages in which the soul is de- 
scribed as material and mortal; and then adds 
Cp. 47), " Nor can we find that the Lord uses the 



70 DR. IVES'S DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL. 

word' ' soul ' in any other way ; certainly never, as 
now used, to signify an immortal part of man. 
And He changes not. What He said.once is truth 
for all time." To all which we have to say: 1. 
"When Dr. Ives says that we cannot find that the 
Lord uses the word " soul " in any other way than 
as denoting "the man himself" as material and 
mortal, he forgets that he himself has admitted 
that the word usually so rendered has three dis- 
tinct senses. 2. The Lord does not use the word 
" soul " at all, but a word which King James's 
translators have rendered by "soul." It is a 
question for philologists, whether that is the 
nearest equivalent, or whether there is any exact 
equivalent? in English. 3. Though it were true 
that the Lord never uses the word nephesh to 
denote an immaterial part of man, yet it does not 
fc^llow that no other word or expression is used 
which does imply or assert that theje is an im- 
material part. 

We must emphasize this point. It is true, as 
Dr. Ives affirms, that sometimes the nephesh is 
said to die, or to be killed, and that the nephesh 
is never directly declared to be undying. But this 
is no proof, that, according to the Old Testament, 
man is wholly material, unless it can be shown that 
there is no other indication that he does live after 
the death of the body. The fallacy of Dr. Ives's 
argument may be seen when we state it thus; 
''^Nephesh means the same as our word ' organism.' 



HASTY GENERALIZATIO]^. 71 

But nepJiesJi is generally translated by our word 
' soul : ' therefore * soul ' ought to mean the same 
as * organism.' " If this reasoning is good, we may 
argue : The Hebrew word elon is always rendered 
" plain " in our Bible. But it means the same thing 
as our word " oak : " therefore our word " plain " 
ought to mean the same as " oak " ! Even if we ad- 
mit that nephesh sometimes means "organism," it 
does not follow that it always has that meaning : Dr. 
Ives himself admits that it does not. Consequently, 
even though the nephesh is said to die, it does not 
follow that any thing more than the organism dies ; 
and the question about a surviving soul is still open. 
6. The one-sidedness of Dr. Ives's argumenta- 
tion strikingly appears in the fact that he con- 
fines his discussion so exclusively to the one 
word nephesh (ot psyche)^ and quite neglects (or 
worse than neglects) to examine the other words 
which the Bible employs to denote, the higher 
part of man. It is especially remarkable that he 
almost wholly overlooks what is said about the 
spirit. When we consider that this word occurs 
in tl)e Old Testament about half as often as 
"soul" (nephesh')^ and in the New Testament 
about twice as often as " soul," it certainly would 
seem to be of some consequence to know what 
the word means. What, now, does Dr. Ives tell 
us about this question ? He says that the Hebrew 
and Greek words for " spirit " (ruahh and pneumd) 
mean "life," or "the vital principle." He tells us, 



72 DR. IVES'S DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL. 

that, " in the original languages, it [life] was de- 
noted by the word primarily meaning ' breath,' as 
that is the outward sign or manifestation of the 
presence of the spirit, or life " (p. 39). Very true ; 
but he fails to mention the fact that the words 
render<)d " soul " (nephesh^ psyche) also originally 
meant "breath," and that, therefore, the etymolo- 
gical argument proves that the meaning of these 
words is "life," as much as that of the others. He 
also fails to mention, that, in the actual use of these 
words, "soul" means "life" twenty times where 
"spirit" has this meaning once. He admits, it 
is true, that both words have this meaning, but 
represents "life" as a meaning of "soul," second- 
ary to the alleged primary meaning, "organism," — 
a representation, which, as we have shown, is 
entirely incorrect. He admits also that " spirit " 
is sometimes used in a metaphorical sense. But 
what is that metaphorical sense ? We will quote 
what he says on this point : " As it is the spirit, 
or vital principle, which sets in operation the func- 
tions of the organism, producing thought, feeling, 
&c., when these are powerfully manifested, we 
call it an exhibition of spirit ; we say, he is a man 
of spirit. And so the opposite. When the Queen 
of Sheba saw the magnificence of Solomon, we 
read, ' There was no more spirit in her ' (1 Kings 
X. 5) ; or, to go back to the earliest meaning of 
'spirit,' it took her breath away, as is still our Eng- 
lish expression " (p. 107). And this is positively 



HIS DEFINITION OF " SPIRIT." 73 

all that Dr. Ives has to say of any other meaning 
of " spirit " than that of " life " ! This is surely 
enough to "take one's breath away." The most 
cursory reading of either Testament, especially 
of the New, shows to any man of even mediocre 
intelligence that " spirit " is ordinarily used to de- 
note the higher part of man, — the seat of thought, 
of character, of the religious feelings and apprehen- 
sions. This has, we trust, been amply illustrated 
and established (p. 34, seq.^. In all the New 
Testament there are only two or three passages in 
which pneuma has the meaning " life ; " and in 
the Old Testament this is a very rare meaning 
of ruahJi. 

It is impossible to repress a feeling of astonish- 
ment at such a treatment of the Scriptures. It 
would be unprofitable to speculate on the ques- 
tion, how a man of Dr. Ives's intelligence and 
honesty could be content so utterly to misrep- 
resent the meaning of the Bible. We cannot 
suppose that he deliberately intended any misrep- 
resentation. But those who judge of his book 
simply by what they read in it, and not by what 
they know about the author, could hardly avoid 
the suspicion, that he has founded his argument 
for the material nature of the soul on what is said 
about the nejjhesh (^psyche)^ as distinguished from 
what is said about the ruaJih (^pneuma) ^ for the 
reason that his doctrine cannot be made to apply 
to the latter. The truth is, as we have seen, that 



74 DR. IVES'S DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL. 

the word " spirit " is the word especially used to 
designate the mind considered as distinct from the 
body. To define " spirit " as meaning merely the 
vital principle — utterly untrue as this is to the ob- 
vious and usual meaning of the word — looks like 
an unfair attempt to remove a difficulty by a mis- 
statement. For the sake of his own reputation, 
to which he is thus (unwittingly, we are sure) in 
danger of doing serious injury, we trust he will 
speedily correct so glaring a mistake. 



BESPECTING A FUTURE LIFE. " 75 



CHAPTER V. 

BIBLICAL PROOF THAT BODY AND SPIRIT ARE 
DISTINCT. 

THE foregoing chapter has incidentally antici- 
pated some of the scriptural arguments which 
relate to the question of a life for the individual 
succeeding the death of the body. But we need 
to treat this point more directly. But let us first 
make some preliminary statements respecting the 
ground on which we stand. 

The question under discussion is, what the Bihle 
teaches respecting a future life. Philosophical 
doctrines or assumptions have, as such, no proper 
place here. We freely admit that some men have 
unwarrantably carried their preconceived notions 
concerning the essential nature of the soul into 
their exegesis of the Scriptures. We do not in- 
sist that the spirit of man is something essentially 
imperishable. What God can create he doubtless 
can destroy. We hold no dogma of the inherent 
indestructibility of the soul. We know too little 
of the physiology of the soul, if we may use such 
an expression, to be able to affirm that it cannot be 



76 SPIRIT AND BODY DISTINCT. 

dissolved and destroyed. The old notion that the 
soul is indivisible, and therefore indestructible, we 
regard as a scholastic subtlety and assumption. 
The premise is not evident ; and, if it were, the 
conclusion would not necessarily follow. 

In combating the view of those who advocate 
what is nowadays called the doctrine of " condi- 
tiojial immortality," we wish also to say expressly 
that we disclaim all dependence on any scientific 
truth respecting the fact of annihilation of sub- 
stance. If we sometimes use the term "annihila- 
tionism " respecting their doctrine, we do not mean 
thereby to imply that they assume that the sub- 
stance of the soul is put out of existence ; and we 
shall not combat their doctrine on the ground, 
that, as the elements of the body after death are 
nevertheless not annihilated, so the death of the 
soul must be assumed to leave the soul in exist- 
ence. The point at issue is, not whether the physi- 
cal substratum of the soul, so to speak, continues 
forever, or indefinitely, but whether the individual 
consciousness and personality continues. If this 
is permanently destroyed, it matters little to prove, 
even if it could be proved, that the substance of 
the soul remains in existence. 

The object of the present chapter is to examine 
what the Bible teaches respecting the distinction 
and separableness of the body and spirit. If they 
are spoken of as distinct from one another, and 
the spirit as capable of existing apart from the 



DISTINCT TERMS FOR BODY AND SPIRIT. 77 

body, then we have a very strong presumptive 
argument in favor of the view, that, according to 
the Bible, the soul is imperishable. Yet we do not 
affirm that the eternal continuance of conscious 
being necessarily follows from any such representa- 
tions of the distinguishable ness of soul and body. 
It must be borne in mind that there are different 
views prevailing among those who deny the essen- 
tial immortality of the soul. Some, like Mr. Con- 
stable and Dr. Ives, hold the materialistic view 
that the soul perishes at death, being in fact only 
a physical thing or phenomenon ; but others, as 
Mr. Hudson and Mr. Edward White, hold that 
the soul survives the death of the body, but after- 
wards is destroyed. The materialistic form of the 
doctrine of annihilation, however, is overthrown, 
if it can be shown that the Bible so describes man 
as to imply or assert that the spirit is •something 
essentially distinct from the body. Let us, then, 
examine the Scriptures on this point. 

1. The very fact that the Bible has distinct 
terms to denote the body and the spirit is an im- 
portant one. If the soul is the body, and was so 
regarded by the biblical writers, then it is singular 
that they should have used words which imply 
that there is a distinction between them. In this 
respect the Bible agrees perfectly with our own 
usage. For our notion of body the Hebrew has 
distinct words. Thus g'viah is used precisely in 
the sense of hody^ in relation to living persons, in 



78 SPIRIT AND BODY DISTINCT. 

Gen. xlvii. 18 ; Neh. ix. 87 ; Ezek. i. 11, 23 ; Dan. 
X. 6. It is used of dead bodies in Nah. iii. 3 ; Ps. 
ex. 6 ; 1 Sam. xxxi. 10 ; and elsewhere. The more 
usual word for corpse, however, is rChelah. Be- 
sides g'viah^ and the poetic form of the same, geah 
(Job XX. 25), our notion of body is conveyed in 
the Hebrew by the word hasar^ commonly trans- 
lated "flesh." It corresponds in general to this 
word in sense; but it is sometimes used in the 
more general sense of body. Thus Num. xix. 7, 
" The priest shall . . . bathe his flesh in water." 
So Ezek. X. 12 ; Isa. x. 18. Often the flesh and^ 
the bones are together used as a designation of the 
body. E.g.: Job ii. 5, "But put forth thine hand 
now, and touch his bone and his flesh." So Gen. 
ii. 23; Judg. ix. 2; 2 Sam. xix. 13. Sometimes 
" bone " alone (Heb., etsem) is used in the compre- 
hensive sense of body ; as Lam. iv. 7. 

In the New Testament there is a word, very 
often used, still more precisely corresponding to 
our word " body ; " viz., %dma, A few examples 
will answer as an illustration of the many. Matt, 
vi. 25, " Take no thought for your life, what ye 
shall eat ; . . . nor yet for your body, what ye shall 
put on." Matt. xxvi. 12, "For in that she hath 
poured this ointment on my body, she did it for 
my burial." Mark v. 29, " She felt in her body 
that she was healed." Soma also is used of a dead 
body ; as Matt. xiv. 12, " His disciples came and 
took up the body, and buried it." This is the 



BIBLICAL WORDS DENOTING BODY. 79 

word which might be represented by our word 
" organism." Dr. Ives says (p. 115) that the soul 
(j)syche^ nephesh) is the organism, and the body 
(sOma)^ as spoken of in the Scriptures (e.g., Matt, 
vi. 25), " is viewed as a form of inert matter, which 
is invested with clothing, as it is displayed upon 
the wooden figures in our shop-windows." Let us 
see. In Rom. xii. 4 we read, "We have many 
members in one body." Is Paul speaking of inert 
matter, or of an organism ? 1 Cor. vi. 19, " Know 
ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy 
Ghost?" Does soma here mean the body con- 
sidered as inert matter ? When Paul tells of the 
spiritual sJma, is it of a body as mere inert matter 
that he is speaking ? Dr. Ives himself insists that 
the resurrection pertains to the organism (p. 121). 
If so, then the spiritual body is an organism. 

The New Testament also uses the word sarx 
(" flesh ") to denote the bodily, as distinguished 
from the spiritual, part of man. E.g. : Acts ii. 30, 
" Of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh." 
Cf. Rom. i. 3, ii. 28 ; Matt. xxvi. 41 ; Gal. ii. 20, 
&c. Sometimes this word is combined with 
'' bones " to express the same meaning ; as Luke 
xxiv. 39, "A spirit hath not flesh and bones." 
The moral sense of depravity which the word 
sarx so often has in Paul's writings presupposes 
a contrast in the literal sense of "flesh" and 
"spirit." 

This fact that the Bible has a distinct set of 



80 SPIRIT AND BODY DISTINCT. 

terms by wliich to designate the bodily organism, 
and another set of terms by which it designates 
that in man which thinks, wills, and feels, is of 
itself almost or qui^e sufficient to overthrow any 
theory which affirms that the Bible identifies body 
and soul. It is a fact which shows that the Bible 
agrees with the mode of thinking and speaking 
which has prevailed among men of all nations. 
Men, in general, have always conceived of the soul, 
or mind, or spirit, as a something distinct from 
the body, which is its organ. Some men have 
theoretically denied this distinction, affirming that 
the only real substance is mind, and that matter 
is only an insubstantial phenomenon. Others 
have held theoretically that mind is only a modi- 
fication of matter, and that matter is the only 
real substance. But in either case the distinction 
has been a matter of speculation, rather than of 
practical belief ; while most men have always held 
to the essential distinction and separableness of 
mind and body, and their language has always 
testified to this belief. It is inwrought into the 
very substance of all language. The universal 
prevalence of terms which describe the soul, not 
as a quality or affection or modification of the 
body, but as a separate entity, is sufficient proof 
of this. Dr. Ives himself would, we suppose, not 
deny the truth of this statement. 

Now, the Bible perfectly agrees, in its general 
tone of description, with the universal language 



BIBLICAL AND COMMON LANGUAGE AGREE. 81 

of men in tliis respect. It speaks of the soul, the 
heart, the spirit, the mind, as men ordinarily do, 
making everywhere the impression that the writers 
adopt the general view of mankind. Neverthe- 
less, Dr. Ives undertakes to say that they hold an 
entirely different view. And on what ground? 
Why, as we have seen, because sometimes the 
Bible speaks of the nephesh as dying; because 
the Bible often says of a man that " he " is buried : 
whereas, if the soul is distinct from the body, 
and is not dead, the principal part of man is not 
buried, and therefore it would not be correct to say 
that the man is buried ! But it is a notorious fact, 
which Dr. Ives himself cannot deny, that men 
ordinarily do use the same term, now of a living 
person, and now of a dead body. We say, Mr. 
Smith was troubled, and Mr. Smith was buried ; 
and yet those who thus speak really hold that that 
which is most essential to Mr. Smith's personality 
was not buried. They hold that that which is the 
seat of thought and feeling is not the body that 
decays. This is the actual fact with regard to the 
use of language. Men, in general, have held that 
the soul survives death, and continues to exist ; 
yet men, in general, have always been wont to 
say of men that thei/ die, while yet referring 
only to the dissolution of the bodily organism. 
In other words, men, in general, have always been 
accustomed to mean by death, not the extinction 
of the whole being, but only of a part of it. If, 



82 SPIRIT AND BODY DISTINCT. 

when tne Bible speaks of death, any thing more 
or different is meant, there must be some other 
proof of such an opinion than the one above given. 
It must be positively shown that the biblical notion 
of death and of the soul is radically different 
from the ordinary one, else it must be assumed to 
be the same. But Dr. Ives's argument, if it 
proves any thing, proves that the language of 
mankind belies their opinions. 

We must admire Dr. Ives's intrepidity, if not 
his good judgment, when we find him boldly 
occupying this position. The ordinary language 
of men, he says, really means something else than 
what men mean when they use it. What would 
naturally be regarded as a disproof of his whole 
argument he turns into a signal confirmation of 
it. Thus, referring to such expressions as " Hun- 
dreds of souls perished in that shipwreck," used 
by those who nevertheless do not really hold that 
the soul of man perishes at all, instead of finding 
in them an indication that similar phraseology in 
the Bible does not imply that the writers really 
believe that death annihilates the soul, he draws 
just the opposite inference. " We here meet," he 
saj^s, "with a relic of ancient days. . . . This 
form of speech has been handed down to us from 
a period antecedent to modern theology, when the 
fact was universally accepted, and indelibly im- 
pressed upon human language, that the soul, or 
organism, is the man himself, and perishes in death ; 



^ DO MEN SAY WHAT THEY MEAN? 83 

and it still holds its own against later innova- 
tions, a most telling witness of the present cor- 
ruption of old-time truth" (pp. Ill, 112). This 
is, indeed, a startling revelation. It has been com- 
monly supposed that language is an instrument 
suited to express men's thoughts and opinions: 
but, according to Dr. Ives, it is an instrument 
which often does not properly express our own 
opinions at all, but those of generations so far 
back, that there is no authentic record of them ; 
opinions which have even been supposed not cur- 
rently to have ever prevailed; opinions of whose 
original prevalence we have no evidence except 
in Dr. Ives's own testimony, derived from the 
language of men, who, so far as appears, have 
generally united in disclaiming any such opinions ! 

It is a bad omen when a man's cause has to be 
maintained by such a mode of argumentation as 
this. It is, in fact, almost impossible to reason 
with one, who, in defence of his doctrine, can 
deliberately maintain a proposition so preposterous 
as the one just- exposed. But let us proceed to 
another point. 

2. Closely akin to the argument derived from 
the fact that the Bible makes large use of words 
designating the soul, or spirit, as something dis- 
tinct from the body, is that derived from the use 
of the personal pronouns. This is a point of 
special weight, and has always, in all discussions 
of the general question of materialism, been justly 



84 SPIRIT AND BODY DISTINCT. 

regarded as of prime importance. When a man 
says, "J see," "/ hear," "J feel ; " when he says, 
"Jiy body," '-'-my heart," "my memory," " wy 
thought," — such language implies irresistibly the 
conception of a person^ — a single person, distinct 
from the body, or any part of the body. To the 
thinking mind every part of the body is something 
external, as really as the body of any one else. 
Such language as we have alluded to cannot be 
accounted for, except on the theory that the per- 
sonality is conceived as inhering in a something 
which underlies all the physical and intellectual 
operations of the man. It implies a belief in a 
certain something which is single^ and which con- 
tinues to be the same from day to day, and from 
year to year. 

Now, the biblical writers use language in this 
same way : and from them the same argument 
is to be derived; viz., that they conceived the 
person to be something distinct from the body, or 
any part of the body. The body is there, as 
everywhere, spoken of as something possessed by 
the thinking self. Take, for example, 2 Cor. v. 3 : 
" If so be, that, being clothed upon, we shall not 
be found naked." Paul here speaks of it as a 
conceivable and possible thing that " we," the hu- 
man persons, may exist " naked ; " i.e., as the con- 
text shows, apart from the body, and apart from 
any body. In all that the Bible says about the 
resurrection, the same thing is most clearly im- 



USE OF THE PERSONAL PRONOUN. 85 

plied. We are to have glorified bodies, — not the 
same bodies as here on earth, but spiritual bodies : 
but " we " are the same persons, whether here or 
there; and the language has no sense, except as 
we assume that what is called " we " is something 
entirely distinct from the perishable body. 

Dr. Ives is not slow to avail himself of the 
argument derived from the use of the pronoun 
when it subserves his purpose. He endeavors to 
prove that the whole man is buried in the ground 
because God said to Adam, " In the sweat of thy 
face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the 
ground; for out of it wast thou'tsiken: for dust 
thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." This 
proves, he thinks, that the man is nothing but the 
bodily organism. Undoubtedly here, and in simi- 
lar cases, the pronoun is used with special refer- 
ence to the body, just as it is often used of the 
body of a living person ; as, e.g., when one says, 
"I am hurt." The pronoun is not always used 
exclusively of the immaterial or intellectual man 
as distinguished from the physical part, but very 
often of the complex whole. So always when one 
says,' "I go," "I remain," "I work," &c. But all 
this does not in the least invalidate the argument 
which we have derived from the fact that the 
general use of the pronoun necessarily implies the 
conception of something distinct from the body, 
and constituting the person. And Dr. Ives's argu- 
ment is especially unfortunate, inasmuch as he 



86 SPIRIT AND BODY DISTINCT 

anconsciously contradicts himself, and indirectly 
asserts what he directly denies ; for, in speaking 
of death and the resurrection, he uses the personal 
pronouns in such a way as to contradict his own 
favorite doctrine, that the death of the body is the 
loss of personal existence. For though at death we 
become non-existent, yet he tells us (p. 37), that, 
according to Paul, " we are to live again." Again 
it is said (p. 42) that at the resurrection the good 
and the wicked are to have " life restored to them.''' 
So again (p. 129) it is said 'that "the wicked man 
loses life a second time, after it had been restored 
to him by a resurrection." We Italicize the pro- 
nouns here (and the cases might be multiplied) 
for the sake of asking, Who or what is the " we " 
or " they " or " he " that is to be raised? Is it the 
soul, as something that has remained in existence 
after death, and distinct from the buried body? 
No ; for Dr. Ives says there is no soul distinct 
from a body. Is it the buried body itself? No; 
for he most vehemently opposes the doctrine of 
the Westminster Confession, that "the selfsame 
body " is raised (p. 121, seq.^. What, then, is 
raised ? Absolutely nothing ; for the dead, on his 
theory, are non-existent : but this nothing may be 
variouijly designated " he," " we," " they," and " I," 
— words which, if they mean any thing, denote 
personality. To say, then, of a man, that after 
death he is non-existent, but that, nevertheless, 
" he " is to be raised to life again, is transparent 



DR. IVES VERSUS HIMSELF. 87 

self-contradiction. Dr. Ives, in spite of himself, 
bears testimony to the doctrine he is opposing. 
He affirms the non-existence of the dead, but in 
the same breath implies, that, in some sense, they 
still exist. Speaking of the rich man and Lazarus, 
he says (p. 61), " What means this chasm fixed 
between those lying dead ? It is that irrevocable 
division, which, the Bible tells us, death fixes be- 
tween the good and the bad at the close of their 
earthly probation." But Dr. Ives has energetically 
labored to prove, that, according to the Bible, the 
good and the bad become non-existent at the close 
of their earthly probation. There is, therefore, 
an irrevocable division fixed between two kinds 
of nonentities ! The good nonentities are care- 
fully distinguished from the bad nonentities ! In 
spite of himself, our author shows that he con- 
ceives the dead to be still existent beings. 

3. Let us now notice some passages in which 
the Bible more formally recognizes and affirms the 
reality of the distinction and separableness of soul 
and body. 

A very remarkable passage is Isa. xxxi. 3 : " Now, 
the Eg}'ptians are men, and not God ; and their 
horses flesh, and not spirit." Here, according to 
the familar style of Hebrew parallelism, "men" 
is parallel with "flesh," and "God" with "spirit." 
The distinction between " men " and " God " is 
analogous to that between "flesh" and "spirit." 
It is clearly implied that God is spirit, and not 



88 SPIRIT AND BODY DISTINCT. 

flesh. At all events, there is an antithesis between 
" flesh " and " spirit " which is utterly irreconcila- 
ble with Dr. Ives's theory of the human soul. 
According to him, the flesh (in the comprehensive 
sense in which that word is used in the Bible) is 
the whole of man. There is no soul or spirit 
which can be regarded as something distinct from, 
and capable of being set over against, the body. 
But Isaiah evidently has a very different notion 
of things. When he says that horses are flesh, 
and not spirit, he must mean by "spirit" some- 
thing very different from the life or the intelli- 
gence which belongs to the horse. It is something 
different from that which constitutes the essential 
thing in the horse, — something different from that 
bodily organism, which. Dr. Ives insists, is the 
whole of man, and of the brutes. It is, as the 
parallelism shows, something which characterizes 
God peculiarly, as distinguished from the fleshly 
form of men. 

In like manner Isaiah (x. 18) speaks of the 
Lord as consuming "the glory of his forest and 
of his fruitful field, both soul and body ; " literally, 
"from the soul (nephesTi) unto the flesh." This 
implies the conception of a clear distinction be- 
tween the flesh and the soul, — a distinction which, 
on Dr. Ives's theory of the soul, is entirely unmean- 
ing and untenable. 

Quite similar in import is the familiar passage 
(Job xix. 26) where the patriarch says (according 



BIBLICAL PASSAGES CONSIDERED. 89 

to the English version), "Though after my skin 
worms destroy tliis body, yet in my flesh shall I 
see God." This is certainly a mistranslation, even 
though it is doubtful what the exact rendering 
should be. There is little doubt, however, that 
the last clause should read, " Without my flesh I 
shall see God." That is. Job says, "I know that 
my Vindicator liveth, and, as the last one [in this 
contest], will rise up over the dust [of my grave] ; 
and, after my skin which is destroyed, — this [skin], 
— without my flesh I shall see God." In any case, 
he speaks of Idmself as something surviving the 
wasting of the body. 

The description given, in Job iv. 15, 16, of the 
"spirit" which appeared to Eliphaz, may be re- 
garded as poetic and imaginative ; but it is none 
the less important as showing that a separate 
existence of spirits was currently conceived as 
possible. This spirit which " passed before " Eli- 
phaz, and whose form he " could not discern," but 
which nevertheless caused his hair to stand on 
end, was certainly not an ordinary form of flesh 
and blood. So the disciples (Matt. xiv. 26), 
when they saw Christ walking on the water, cried 
out, " It is a spirit ! " showing that they had a con- 
ception of beings characterized predominantly, if 
not wholly, by what in ordinary men is only a part, 
though the most important part. 

We have (p. 71, seq.^ animadverted on Dr. Ives'a 
treatment of the biblical doctrine of the '* spirit," 



90 SPIRIT AND BODY DISTINCT. 

It is significant, that, among the passages which 
he quotes (p. 39) in illustration of his definition 
(only four in all), is Eccles. xii. 7 : " Then shall the 
dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit 
shall return unto God who gave it." Here there 
is a manifest antithesis between the " dust " and 
the "spirit." The dust, of course, denotes the 
physical part, which is buried. Now, when we con- 
sider that "spirit" in the Old Testament com- 
monly designates the seat of thought, will, and 
feeling, the most obvious conclusion certainly is, 
that the preacher here recognizes that distinction 
between spirit and body which is implied all' 
through the Bible ; and that, while he speaks of the 
body as buried after death, he describes the spirit 
as surviving, and as returning to the God who gave 
it. What, now, does our author have to say con- 
cerning the usual interpretation ? He says, " The 
popular misinterpretation of this passage, con- 
sidering the explicitness of the context, is indeed 
something marvellous." And then he quotes other 
verses in which man is represented as going into the 
grave ; whence he concludes, that, if the " man " 
goes into the grave, the " spirit," which returns to 
God, cannot be the essential part of man, as it is 
commonly understood to be. Probably not many 
will sympathize with Dr. Ives's astonishment in 
this respect. Inasmuch as we all continually 
speak of " men " as being buried, and nevertheless 
conceive that the " spirit," as being the essential 



PASSAGES IN ECCLESIASTES. 91 

part of man, continues in existence, it is not 
particularly "marvellous" that we should under- 
stand the Bible to speak in the same way. And 
when, as in the passage quoted, the "spirit" is 
expressly contrasted with the " dust " which re- 
turns to the earth, the only " marvellous " thing 
about the matter is, that Dr. Ives could quietly 
ignore the ordinary meaning of " spirit " as used 
in the Bible, and thus attempt to break the force 
of this passage. This, be it remembered, is the 
exegesis of a man who is very free in his denun- 
ciations of " human inventions, which make void 
the word of God " (p. 118) ; and even takes it 
upon himself to accuse the translators of the Eng- 
lish Bible of " a deliberate and persistent effort to 
cover up the tricth on this question of the soul " in 
our English version (p. 101). 

This passage in Ecclesiastes, especially when 
connected with the parallel one in iii. 21, is of 
great importance in reference to the question 
before us. Singularly enough, Dr. Ives, though 
he has quoted Eccles. iii. 19, 20, seems not to have 
regarded the next verse as of any consequence ; for 
he has nowhere noticed it. The preceding verses 
speak of men and beasts as having a common 
end. " All go unto one place ; all are of the dust, 
and all turn to dust again." Then the Preacher 
adds, " Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth 
upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth 
downward to the earth ? " There is little doubt, 



92 SPIRIT AND BODY DISTINCT. 

we think, that this ought to be translated, " Who 
knoweth whether the spirit of man goeth upward, 
and whether the spirit of the beast goeth down- 
ward to the earth ? " But, in either case, a distinc- 
tion is conceived as possible. The spirit of man is 
represented as having, in the opinion of some, a 
different destination from that of the beast. As 
we render it, the verse rather seems to deny that 
the distinction is a real one. The context, as well 
as the grammatical construction, favors this view. 
But the writer here speaks as a despondent scep- 
tic. He doubts whether man is, on the whole, 
better off than the brute ; but at last he surmounts 
his doubts, and attains to the assured conviction 
(xii. 7), that, when man dies, his spirit will "go 
upward" to God who gave it. But if "spirit" 
means, as Dr. Ives claims, nothing but "life," 
then all thought of a distinction between the 
spirit of man and that of the brute is idle: the 
question could never have been raised. 

Similar to this passage in Eccles. xii. 7 are two 
in the New Testament, which Dr. Ives treats in a 
similar manner. The first is Luke xxiii. 46, 
where Jesus on the cross is described as saying, 
" Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." 
The other is Acts vii. 59, where Stephen, in like 
manner, at death says, " Lord Jesus, receive my 
spirit." Of tliis Dr. Ives says (p. 42), "He 
intrusts to his Lord the principle of life he had 
received." He understands these passages to 



PROOF FROM MATT. X. 28. 93 

refer to the resurrection, at which the principle of 
life shall be restored to the dead one. We shall, 
at a later point, have more to say about this con- 
ception. It is sufficient to remark here, that such 
an interpretation makes something very near non- 
sense of the passages. What, on Dr. Ives's mate- 
rialistic theory, is a vital principle which is sepa- 
rated from a living organism ? Is it a part of the 
material organism, or something distinct from it? 
If a part of it, then not the whole man is buried, 
as he repeatedly affirms that it is. If not a part 
of it, then it must be something immaterial; 
though Dr. Ives everywhere denounces the no- 
tion that there is any thing immaterial in man. 
If the whole man is buried, then nothing is left 
which can be commended to God. 

More important are certain New-Testament pas- 
sages in which the soul, or spirit, is spoken of in 
connection with the body as a distinct thing. 
E.g. : Matt. x. 28, " Fear not them which kill the 
body, but are not able to kill the soul." No 
sharper or more emphatic expression could be 
made of the fact that body and soul are not iden- 
tical, but entirely distinct. What does Dr. Ives 
do ^vith it ? The latter part of the verse (" but 
rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul 
and body in hell") he quotes at least in four 
different places ; for it seems strongly to favor his 
doctrine that the soul is annihilated. But " the 
first part he refers to only once (p. 116). He 



94 SPIRIT AND BODY DISTINCT. 

puts the question, " Can man literally destroy a 
soul ? " and he answers it thus : " What does 
the Bible say to this? It replies, Teniporaril}^, 
relatively to this life. Yes ! * They smote all the 
souls with the edge of the sword, utterly destroy- 
ing them.' But permanently, in relation to abso- 
lute existence here or hereafter, it replies. No ! 
'Fear not them who kill the body, but are not 
able to kill the soul ; but rather fear him who is 
able to destroy soul and body in Gehenna.' From 
man's destruction there is a returning to life 
again. . . . but in the destruction from God's 
hand, in his Gehenna fire, there is no return to 
life." 

This is certainly a very singular style of exegesis. 
Dr. Ives, it must be remembered, is a champion 
of "literal" interpretation. The question is. Can 
man destroy a soul? He says that the Bible re- 
plies, " Yes, temporarily y Where does the Bible 
say "temporarily"? The simple fact is, that in 
one place the Bible speaks of men destroying 
souls, and in the other says that men cannot de- 
stroy the soul ; and this distinction of " tempo- 
rarily" and "permanently" is one invented by 
Dr. Ives to explain the apparent inconsistency of 
the Bible. We prefer another way, warranted by 
acknowledged facts ; viz., to suppose that the word 
" soul " is used in different senses. But this is not 
the worst. Dr. Ives regards it as the great merit 
of his book that he has proved that there is no 



L 



ABSURDITY OF DR. IVES'S EVASION. 95 

distinction between the soul and the body. The 
soul, he says, is the organized body : the several 
parts of the body are " parts of the soul " (p. 327) ; 
a dead body is a " dead soul " (p. 115). But Christ 
tells us that men can destroy the body, and cannot 
destroy the soul. But, if the soul and the body 
are identical, this means that men can destroy the 
soul, and yet cannot destroy it. It is true that Dr. 
Ives admits a sort of distinction between soul and 
body. The soul, according to him, is the organ- 
ism, — the bodily parts orderly arranged; while 
the term " body," as distinguished from the organ- 
ism, has reference rather to the " physical mass, 
made up of so many material elements or particles 
agglomerated together" (p. 114). But this is not 
only utterly incorrect in itself, but, even if correct, 
would be a mere distinction in idea^ not in fact. 
It does not in the slightest degree affect the inter- 
pretation of Christ's language ; and Dr. Ives him- 
self, though he has just been elaborating this dis- 
tinction, makes no use of it here. In fact, he seems 
to be utterly oblivious of the fact that there is any 
contrast between body and soul involved in the 
verse. The case is as clear as possible. On Dr. 
Ives's own theory of the soul, the distinction be- 
tween "temporarily" and "permanently" makes 
not the slightest difference: for if Christ means 
that men can destroy a soul temporarily, but not 
permanently, then he must equally mean that men 
can destroy a body temporarily, but not perma- 



96 SPIRIT AND BODY DISTINCT. 

nently ; for, according to Dr. Ives, the soul is the 
body. Whatever is true of the one is true of the 
other. Nor is this question affected in any degree 
by the distinction which he afterwards makes be- 
tween the soul and the body with reference to the 
resurrection. The resurrection, he says (pp. 120, 
121), "is a resurrection of the soul, or organism: 
it is not a resurrection of the body." For he is 
there only denying the identity of the future body 
with the present one. But it is impossible to 
recognize even this distinction as admissible in Dr. 
Ives's system : for he says expressly (p. 105) that 
the biblical " soul " is the same as our " organism ; " 
that " we use ' organism,' as the Bible does ' soul,' 
as a practical synonyme for ' body ; ' " that " the 
Bible speaks of the various bodily organs as parts 
of a soul^ or organism " (p. 112). Over and over 
again he assures us that the soul, the man, is noth- 
ing but an organized body. If, at the resurrection, 
the soul raised is the same in any sense as the one 
that died, then the same organized body must be 
raised. But, be this as it may, Christ is speaking 
of the present body and soul ; and, on Dr. Ives's 
theory, he who kills the body must kill the soul. 
That theory is utterly crushed by Christ's declara- 
tion. As Mr. Edward White remarks (" Life in 
Christ," a work advocating the doctrine of con- 
ditional immortality, p. 302), "No even colorable 
escape from this criticism seems possible, ex- 
cept by refinements unintelligible to the common 
people." 



I 



PROOF FROM 2 COR. XII. 2. 97 

Another passage, still more emphatically conclu- 
sive, if possible, against Dr. Ives's theory of the 
soul as identical with the body, is found in 2 Cor. 
xii. 2, where Paul says, " I knew a man in Christ 
above fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I 
cannot tell ; or whether out of the body, I cannot 
tell : God knoweth) ; such an one caught up to 
the third heaven." This is the description of a 
vision which Paul had had. It is the ordinary 
characteristic of visions, that the one who has 
them seems to be transported into different sur- 
roundings from his actual ones. He sees what 
no one else with him can see, or hears what no 
one else can hear. Thus Ezekiel says of liimself 
(viii. 3), " He [Jehovah] put forth the form of an 
hand, and took me by a lock of mine head ; and 
the spirit lifted me up between the earth and the 
heaven, and brought me in the visions of God to 
Jerusalem." No one supposes that Ezekiel's body 
was literally carried from Babylon to Jerusalem. 
He might have described his case just as Paul de- 
scribed his, — " Whether in the body, or out of the 
body, I cannot tell." That is, whether the spirit, 
the ego^ the man's self, was really taken out of his 
body and transported to another place, the man 
who had the vision could not tell: all he knew 
was, that he had been supernaturally made to see 
what was quite beyond the possibility of ordinary 
experience. But the bearing of all this on the 
question before us is very obvious. It is not 



98 SPmiT AND BODY DISTINCT. 

necessary for us, any more than it was possible for 
Paul, to decide whether he was in the body or out 
of the body at the time referred to. The impor- 
tant truth clearly involved in the language is, that 
Paul conceived it as a possible thing that he could 
be taken out of his body. It would have been a 
sheer impossibility for him to have used the lan- 
guage quoted, if he had had the notion of the body 
which our author imputes to him. "Whether in 
the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the 
body, I cannot tell " ! Why, if Paul had learned 
his psychology from Dr. Ives's book, he would 
have had to suppose that there was nothing of him 
but the body. If he really did hold the doctrine 
advocated in that book, then we must understand 
him to say, fourteen years after the occurrence had 
taken place, and when there had been ample time 
for any temporary insanity to leave him, that he 
did not know whether, on that occasion, his body 
had been out of his body ! Though he knew that 
his self consisted wholly of his bodily organism, 
yet he could not tell whether he had been outside 
of himself ! We do not know how Dr. Ives would 
explain this passage. For some reason he does not 
refer to it. But it is certain that it is utterly 
irreconcilable with the doctrine, that, according to 
the Bible, the soul is identical with the bodily 
organism. 

We next call attention to certain passages, some 
of which have previously been referred to, in which 



OTHER BIBLICAL PASSAGES ADDUCED. 99 

a contrast more or less sharp is drawn between 
the body and the spirit. In 1 Cor. v. 3 we read, 
" i verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, 
have judged already." Similarly Paul says, in 
Col. ii. 5, " Though I be absent in the flesh, yet 
am I with you in the spirit." This is not the lan- 
guage of one to whom flesh and spirit are identical 
and inseparable. 

Still more strongly is the distinction between 
body and spirit implied in Christ's language: 
Matt. xxvi. 41, " The spirit indeed is willing ; but 
the flesh is weak." Cf. the parallel passage in Mark 
xiv. 38. Where, as above, the spirit and the flesh 
are spoken of as in different places, it would be 
possible to regard the language as somewhat figu- 
rative ; but here the contrast has reference to char- 
acter. Spirit and flesh are represented as in some 
sense opposed to one another. Things that are 
identical cannot be so described. If the flesh is 
the spirit, it cannot be said that the flesh is weak 
while the spirit is willing. 

John iii. 6, " That which is born of the flesh is 
flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is 
spirit." Our Lord is supposed by many to use 
here the word " flesh " in the ethical sense, which 
it so generally has in the writings of Paul. That 
is, he that is born of one who has a sinful human 
nature is characterized by the same carnal nature ; 
whereas he who is regenerated through the Holy 
Spirit has a spiritual nature. Even if we admit 



100 SPIRIT AND BODY DISTINCT. 

that this is the exact shade of meaning, we have 
still the fact before us of a contrast between the 
ethical significance of these words, which would 
and could never have arisen, if, in their literal sense, 
they had been perfectly identical. But we think, 
that, in this passage, "flesh " does not have a strictly 
moral sense. Nicodemus has just been expressing 
his surprise at Jesus' announcement of the neces- 
sity of a second birth. " How can a man be born,* 
he asks, "when he is old? Can he enter the second 
time into his mother's womb, and be born?" It 
is with reference to this notion of Nicodemus con- 
cerning physical birth that Jesus replies, "Except 
a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can- 
not enter the kingdom of God. That which is 
born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born 
of the Spirit is spirit." As much as to say, " The 
subject of physical birth is a human bodj^, a fleshly 
form. It is not the body that needs to be born 
again, — to go a second time through the physical 
process of being born: that which needs to be 
introduced to a new life is the spirit. This it is 
which is renewed by the Spirit of God." Thus 
understood, the passage expresses in the strongest 
manner the distinction between the body and the 
spirit. 

The same thing is clearly indicated by such lan- 
guage as is found in Phil. i. 22, 24 : " If I live in 
the flesh, this is the fruit of my labor. ... To abide 
in the flesh is more needful for you." No one 



BIBLICAL PASSAGES ADDUCED. 101 

could so speak who did not regard himself as some- 
thing distinct from the flesh in which he describes 
himself as living and abiding. In like manner 
Paul speaks, in Gal. ii. 20, of "the life which I 
now live in the flesh." 

To the same effect are all those passages in 
which the body and the spirit are spoken- of to- 
gether as distinct though associated things. E.g. : 
1 Cor. vi. 20, " Glorify God in your body and in 
your spirit, which are God's." Paul has been 
warning against sins which especially affect the- 
body; and now he adds this general precept to 
glorify God both with the body and with the 
spirit, — a precept which has no pertinence on the 
materialistic theory that there is nothing of man 
but the body. So in 1 Cor. vii. 34 it is said that 
" the unmarried woman careth for the things of 
the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and 
in spirit ; " and in 2 Cor. vii. 1 we are exhorted 
to "cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the 
flesh and spirit." 

Further confirmation of the conclusions here 
reached will be found in the next chapter. 



102 MAN EXISTENT AFTER DEATH. 



CHAPTER VI. 

BIBLICAL PKOOF THAT HUMAN EXISTENCE IS NOT 
TERMINATED AT DEATH. 

THE demonstration now given, that the Bible 
everywhere recognizes a sharp distinction 
between the material body and the soul, does not 
of itself prove that the soul continues to exist as 
a conscious person after the death of the body ; 
though it does furnish a strong presumption that 
this is the case. Especially is this true of those 
passages in which a contrast is made between body 
and* spirit. If spirit is only a set of physical phe- 
nomena or affections, then no general contrast 
between spirit and body could be instituted.- Still 
it is important to examine what the Bible says 
more directly on the question whether death puts 
an end to the spirit as well as to physical life. 

Dr. Ives devotes a chapter (pp. 52-103) to an 
examination of the passages which seem to imply 
that the soul survives the death of the body. We 
will here follow him in this discussion. 

The story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 
xvi. 19-31) occupies the first and largest space in 



THE RICH ]VIAN AND LAZARUS. 103 

this chapter. He evidently feels this to be a seri- 
ous obstacle in the way of the acceptance of his 
theory, that between death and the resurrection 
the dead are non-existent. In the first place, he 
calls the narrative a parable. To this we have no 
objection ; for it must be remembered that a para- 
ble is, according to all authorities, an account of 
something which, though fictitious so far as the 
personages and incidents are concerned, is never- 
theless true to nature. A fable assumes what is 
both unreal and impossible to be actual (Jotham's 
so-called parable — not so called in the Bible — was 
a fable) : a parable only assumes that to be true 
which is in its nature possible. Thus all that is 
said about the good Samaritan might have been a 
fact of real life, so far as the nature of the inci- 
dents is concerned. But Dr. Ives, while calling 
the story a parable, yet elaborately argues that we 
cannot understand it literally, and that the derails 
of the narrative are, in part, such as could not have 
been literally true; e.g., Abraham's bosom, and 
the reference to the rich man's tongue, eyes, &c. 
To this also we agree. The general definition of a 
parable must be modified somewhat to meet the 
present case. The language is more picturesque 
than in ordinary parables. But, on the other hand, 
we must remember that the scene is laid in the 
future world, to describe which the language of 
this world must necessarily be inadequate. A 
certain degree of figurativeness is, therefore, quite 



104 MAN EXISTENT AFTER DEATH. 

indispensable in such a description. But still the 
narrative is a parable. It is narrated for the pur- 
pose of conveymg a moral lesson concerning the 
folly of trusting in riches for happiness: it tells 
us what is to be the issue of such a life compared 
with that of a man who is pious, even though poor 
as poverty itself: therefore we must understand 
the parable as literally as possible. The objection 
that we cannot understand the language about 
eyes, bosom, &c., literally, is of no more weight 
than the same objection would have with reference 
to similar language used concerning God. But, 
because we do not believe ' that God has literal 
eyes and ears, we do not therefore doubt his 
existence. We understand the language as liter- 
erally as the nature of the case and the analogy of 
Scripture permit. 

What, now, does Dr. Ives make of this narrative ? 
Having proved that in several respects the descrip- 
tion cannot be understood literally, h^ comes to 
the conclusion that none of it is to be so under- 
stood. He explains it as "highly-wrought para- 
bolic imagery," like what is found in Isa. xiv. 
9-11, where the dead in Sheol are represented as 
rising up and exulting over the king of Babylon 
as he comes down to join them (p. 59). The dead 
men, though in reality absolutely lifeless and non- 
existent, are pictured as alive, and anticipating the 
experiences of the fmal state. "The awakened 
sleeper is depicted as already feeling the hot 



DK. IVES'S THEORY OF THE PARABLE. 105 

breath [of the fire of Gehenna] ; and in his de- 
spair he cries out for the smallest respite, though 
but a drop of water" (p. 62). On this view, 
thinks Dr. Ives, all " difficulties vanish, and all 
the proprieties of time, place, and grammatical 
construction, are strictly observed " (p. 63) ; for he 
says (1), " It is most natural these dead Israelites 
should be found where the parable locates them, 
— in Hades, the grave, the house of the dead" 
(p. 59). To which we reply, first, that Hades is 
not the grave (as we shall later see) ; and second- 
ly, that, even if it were, only the rich man is lo- 
cated there. Lazarus is said to have been carried 
directly to Abraham's bosom. This is absolutely 
fatal to Dr. Ives's whole theory. Abraham's 
bosom was the current designation of the con- 
scious state of happiness enjoyed by the departed 
souls of the good. But (2) he pays, " On this 
view, neither the beggar nor the rich man have 
received their reward," according to the usual 
representation that the judgment comes after the 
resurrection (^Ibid.}. To which we reply, that 
" this view " does not accord with the plain teach- 
ing of the parable, according to which the two 
men in some sense have received their reward. 
(3) This view, he says, unlike the other, " is fully 
in accord with the Scriptures, which, while they 
declare that the dead know not any thing, also in 
highly-wrought parabolic imagery (Isa. xiv. 9-11) 
represent the dead actually in their graves rising 



106 MAN EXISTENT AFTER DEATH. 

up to rejoice over the mighty conqueror who had 
put them to death." And '(4) we are told, " the 
absurdities of the other method of interpretation 
vanish on this." It is not at all incongruous, he 
thinks, to speak of the dead having bodily forms 
such as were laid in the grave ; while the imagina- 
tion only has to supply " life, and the consequent 
power of speech and motion." 

Lot us see. If all this is so, then (1) we are 
to understand, that, while it would be incongruous 
to represent disembodied souls as having bodies, it 
is quite natural to conceive of non-existent souls as 
having bodies ! Moreover (2), some men, if not 
Dr. Ives, will find it incongruous to suppose, that, 
if Hades means the grave, two men, each in his 
own separate grave, and carefully buried up, 
should be considered as seeing one another, even 
if our imagination has brought them into life and 
new existence. (3) The reference to Isa. xiv. is 
very unhappy : for there the dead are represented 
as not only in Sheol (Hades), but as having the 
experiences of Sheol^ not of an anticipated future 
state ; whereas, according to Dr. Ives, Lazarus and 
the rich man are pictured as anticipating the ex- 
periences of heaven and hell. (4) Still more fatal 
is the objection, that there is no conceivable reason^ 
.on Dr. Ives's theory, why the scene of the parable 
should be laid in Hades^ instead of being a direct 
description of the final state of the dead. If Christ 
meant, as he certainly did, to warn men against 



REFUTATION OF DR. IVES'S EXPLANATION. 107 

trusting in riclies, then all lie needed to do, and 
all he did do on any view, was to reveal what was 
ultimately to follow a life of worldliness. If the 
retribution was in no sense to come till after the 
judgment, then our Lord has deceived us. The 
notion that this is highly-wrought parabolic im- 
agery is advanced to remove a difficulty. There 
are none of the marks of such imagery as Dr. Ives 
attributes to this passage. Compare the style of 
it with Isa. xiv., and mark the difference. But 
our author really makes it much more imaginative 
than Isaiah's description. Not only are the dead 
imagined to be alive, but the dead imagine them- 
selves to be alive, and to be where they are not ! 

The case is as strong as possible. Christ plainly 
says that the rich man went to Hades, and was 
there in torment : Dr. Ives sa3^s that he went to 
the grave, and became non-existent. Christ says 
that Lazarus was carried to Abraham's bosom ; i.e., 
was taken into a condition of conscious felicity : 
Dr. Ives says that he, too, was non-existent. Christ 
gives not the slightest hint that his description 
has relation to any thing but what it seems to 
relate to ; viz., the state of men immediately after 
death : Dr. Ives, on his own responsibility, transfers 
the whole scene to the time after the judgment, 
calling this an imagination of the non-existent 
dead men; whereas it is evident that the only 
violent stretch of the imagination is that of Dr. 
Ives himself. One simple fact, unnoticed by Dr. 



108 MAN EXISTENT AFTER DEATH. 

Ives, is sufficient of itself to overthrow this whole 
fabric. The rich man begs Abraham to send Laz- 
arus to his father's house on earth, where he says 
he has five brethren. But, if he is in imagination 
already in a state of final reward, then his brethren 
must be there too. If he imagines himself to have 
got beyond the judgment, then why should he im- 
agine his brethren to be not yet even dead? " The 
figurative understanding of the parable," says Dr. 
Ives (p. 60), ..." has the advantage of plainness 
and entire consistency in its details, which then 
can be taken in a straightforward, literal sense." 
Wonderful consistency this, that when the rich 
man has not only imagined himself and Lazarus to 
be in existence when they are not, and imagined 
the non-existent Abraham also into existence, and 
imagined himself to be in hell when he is in 
reality in Hades, — that, after all this astounding 
feat of the imagination, he should forget to 
imagine that the fate of his brethren is by this 
time as much fixed as his own ! 

In short, finding the parable in its plain teach- 
ings and implications utterly inconsistent with his 
theory. Dr. Ives, abandoning the literal interpreta- 
tion, not only makes it all figurative, but figurative 
in such a way as would not naturally suggest it- 
self to one of a thousand readers of the Bible; 
and, having adopted this theory, he has involved 
the whole thing in a series of incongruities twice 
as bad as those he seeks to avoid. And the chief 



CHRIST'S ARGUMENT WITH THE SADDUCEES. 109 

and avowed reason of all is, that, since the dead 
are absolutely extinct, we must resort to some such 
theory. To which it is only necessary to reply, 
that the veri/ question in dispute is, whether the 
dead are extinct. 

Not more successful is Dr. Ives's dealing with 
Christ's argument with the Sadducees, as recorded 
in Luke xx. 27-38 (cf. Matt. xxii. 23-32; Mark 
xii. 18-27). He evidently regards his treatment 
of this matter as very momentous and decisive. 
In fact, he looks upon this portion of Scripture as 
proving the exact opposite of what it is commonly 
supposed to teach. The greater interest attaches 
to it, inasmuch as he tells us that it was just this 
argument of Christ with the Sadducees, which, 
when he was investigating the question of the 
sleep of the dead, and was even struggling against 
a growing conviction of its truth, " decided the 
question for him " (p. 69). How did this come 
to pass? He says (p. 70), "Christ's argument is 
really this : God's words at the bush recognize a 
life for dead patriarchs; but there is no life for 
dead ones, except by a resurrection (or raising to 
life again) ; therefore there must be a resurrec- 
tion : which was to be proved." Undoubtedly 
there is some plausibility in this ; but the plausi- 
bility arises chiefly from the insertion of the minor 
premise, — " there is no life for dead ones, except 
by a resurrection," — which is not found in Christ's 
own language. So far from this, he says, " God ia 



110 MAN EXISTENT AFTER DEATH. . 

not the God of the dead^ but of the living ; for all 
live unto him." That is, he meets the Sadducees 
— who disbelieved the continued existence of man 
after the death of the body, and therefore, of 
course, rejected the notion of a resurrection — by 
arguing, from Jehovah's language at the bush, 
that the dead patriarchs are not absolutely dead, 
but are still living in relation to God, and there- 
fore may be raised in another body. In other 
words, he says, " There will be a resurrection of 
the dead; for the dead are still existent, and 
therefore there is something to raise." Dr. Ives, 
however, virtually says, " There will be a resurrec- 
tion of the dead ; for, though there is nothing to 
raise, yet it will be raised." He speaks of the 
trouble felt by some commentators in apprehend- 
ing the force of our Lord's argument. The trouble 
is this : Christ seems to make more depend upon 
the divine declaration, " I am the God of Abra- 
ham," &c., than it would seem fairly to warrant. 
That is, Jehovah might naturally use this language ; 
meaning, however, only, " I am he who was the 
God of Abraham." And, further, even if this 
use of the present tense did prove the continued 
existence of the patriarchs, how does th?tt prove 
that there is to be a resurrection? In view of 
these difficulties. Dr. Ives says, " He totally failed 
to prove his point, if we accept modern theology's 
interpretation of Christ's argument ; " and adds, 
" It is only as freed from the popular delusion, that 



CHRIST'S ARGUMENT WITH THE SADDUCEES. Ill 

dead ones are actually living ones, that we find 
ourselves also freed from all difficulty in the case." 
How this is he proceeds to show by the above- 
quoted s3^11ogism. Only thus, he thinks, can we 
explain the record that the Sadducees were -'put 
to silence." But, for our part, we can still less see 
why, on Dr. Ives's theory, the Sadducees ought 
lo have been put to silence. If Christ admitted, 
with them, that the dead patriarchs were non-ex- 
istent, then his argument from Jehovah's address 
to Moses depends for all its force upon the assump- 
tion that " I am " is equivalent to " I will be." 
But the ready retort to this might have been, " The 
declaration ' I am ' may as well be replaced by 
' I was ' as by ' I will be.' " Even on the assump- 
tion, therefore, that there can be no future life 
excej)t through a resurrection, the proof of that 
future life must, on Dr. Ives's theory, have seemed 
to the Sadducees to consist in the bare declara- 
tion, " There will be one, for there will be one." 
But there is force in our Lord's argument, if we 
take liim at his word, and, when he sa)^s, " God is 
not the God of the dead, but of the living," un- 
derstand him to derive from Jehovah's language 
the very truth which he does derive ; viz., that the 
patriarchs are not dead in the Sadducean sense, 
but that they still live.^ 

1 We say, " dead in tlie Sadducean sense; " for Christ at the 
same time afllrms that all are alive, in some sense at least, though 
he yet si)eaks of the patriarchs as dead, — "that the dead are 



112 MAN EXISTENT AFTER DEATH. 

According to Dr. Ives, the point of our Saviour's 
argument rests on the assumption that there can 
be no future life except by a resurrection of the 
bodily organism. But, even if this were true, it 
woiild have had no force with the Sadducees ; for 
there is no evidence that they admitted any such 
principle : there is good evidence that they did 
not. According to Josephus (" Jewish War," ii. 
8), the Essenes believed in the continued existence 
of the soul after death, without any resurrection 
of the body ; and even the Pharisees, he says, be- 
lieved that only the good would have other bodies 
given to them, though both the good and bad 
would continue to exist. The notion that there 
is no soul that can exist apart from a bodily organ- 
ism, even if Christ held it, was not one that we 
have any reason to believe had any existence 
among the Jews : therefore any argument resting 
on such a notion must have had no weight with 
them. 

The reputed raising of Samuel, as recorded in 
1 Sam. xxviii. 3 -25, is another passage as to which 
Dr. Ives energetically labors to overthrow the 
natural and ordinary impression produced by it 

raised." If we take the statement, " God is not the God of the 
dead," strictly, or infer from it that the dead are really non-ex- 
istent, then it is a flat contradiction of what Paul says (Rom. xiv. 
9), " To this end Christ both died and rose and revived, that he 
might be Lord both of the dead and living." This, moreover, is 
another passage (not noticed by Dr. Ives) most clearly implying 
that the dead are not non-existent. 



THE RAISING OF SAMUEL. 113 

(p. 91, seq.^. The upshot of his discussion is, 
that the pretended raising of Samuel was a fraud, 
cunningly practised on Saul by the necromancer; 
and that the Bible does not assert or imply that 
Samuel really appeared. The main points of his 
argument are these: 1. Since Saul had hardened 
himself in sin, it is incredible that God would now 
do what he had all along been refusing to do ; viz., 
grant him an audience. 2. The witch could not 
bring Samuel up, and God would not : therefore the 
whole thing was a fraud. 3. The appearance of 
reality is easily accounted for by the circumstances. 
The woman could recognize Saul from his ex- 
traordinary size, but conceals her knowledge. She 
feigns terror at the fictitious appearance of the 
prophet, not because he has really appeared, but 
because, while Saul has sternly forbidden all nec- 
romanc}^ " she has been unwittingly betrayed into 
practising her unlawful art in his very presence " 
(p. 94). In the conversation which followed be- 
tween Saul and Samuel, the woman acted the part 
of a ventriloquist, or had a confederate. 

The opinion that the appearance of Samuel w^ 
wholly fictitious is one which others have held, 
and which is not entirely without plausibility. It 
is possible that Saul might have been imposed upon 
in such a way, under the circumstances. It is no- 
where said that he saw Samuel : it is rather implied 
that he did not. The woman mai/ have lied from 
beginning to end. Nevertheless, Dr. Ives's argu- 



114 MAN EXISTENT AFTER DEATH. 

ments in favor of this view are far from satisfac- 
tory. Let us consider them. 

The notion, that because of Saul's wickedness 
God would not have granted his desired interview 
with Samuel, is any thing but conclusive. It is 
certainly not an unbiblical conception of God, that 
he may grant men's requests, and in so doing send 
leanness into their soul (Ps. cvi. 15). If God had 
granted what Saul really wanted, — viz., not only 
an interview with Samuel, but some comforting 
communication from him, — then we might have 
occasion for wonder ; but inasmuch as Samuel's 
message was nothing but a brief, cold confirmation 
of Saul's worst fears, there is nothing in the mere 
granting of the desired interview which is incon- 
sistent with God's uniform treatment of him. 

We admit, of course, that the woman could not 
really bring Samuel up ; but, as has been seen, it 
does not follow that God either could not or would 
not do it. 

As to the rest, all that can be alleged is, that the 
woman may have lied throughout. But something 
more than this is needed in order to a proof. Her 
expression of terror, Dr. Ives says, was occasioned 
by her having been betrayed into the practice of 
her arts before the king, who had prohibited it. 
But if, as Dr. Ives assumes, she knew all the while 
that the man was Saul himself, and she had refused 
to use her incantations till she had secured from 
him an oath that she should suffer no harm, it is 



THE RAISING OF SAMUEL. 115 

hard to see why, all of a sudden, in the midst of 
her operations, this fear should have come over 
her. 

In addition to all this, it must be said : 1. The 
theory that the whole thing was a fraud has to be 
read into the text. The narrative itself nowhere 
says it or implies it. Particularly is this to be ob- 
served with regard to the conversation between 
Saul and Samuel. The *Bible says, " Samuel said 
unto Saul," and that "Saul answered." The 
theory, that not Samuel, but the woman, or some 
accomplice, said what is here put into Samuel's 
mouth, is one which has to be foisted into the 
narrative in utter disregard of the plain statement 
that Samuel himself spoke, and not somebody else 
We must take God's truth. Dr. Ives says, "pre 
cisely as God gives it to us." 2. The tone of 
Samuel's message to Saul is one which it is diffi- 
cult to attribute to an impostor who was playing a 
trick on the king. Especially is it improbable that 
an impostor would have ventured to make the 
specific prediction, that Saul and his sons would 
all be killed on the next day. In spite of all that 
may be said by way of showing how a shrewd per- 
son might have acted the part of Samuel, and 
might have conjectured that Saul and his sons 
would certainly die on the morrow, it is next to 
impossible to think that the narrator meant to 
convey any other impression than that there was 
a really supernatural appearance and message. 



116 MAN EXISTENT AFTER DEATH. 

But aside from all this, even if we should admit 
that the reputed appearance was wholly fraudulent, 
we have not got rid of the difficulties which the 
narrative throws in the way of Dr. Ives's theory. 
At all events, the narrative shows that there was 
a widespread belief in the continued existence of 
the dead, and even in the possibility of holding 
intercourse with them. It was a belief having 
such a prevalence, that -even the king, who had 
prohibited the practice of necromancy, himself, in 
his desperation, resorted to a necromancer ; thus 
showing that he shared the belief, not only in the 
continued existence of the dead, but in the power 
of necromancy to bring them up. To all this it 
may indeed be replied, that the whole notion was 
nevertheless a superstition, and is shown to be 
such by the very fact that necromancy was for- 
bidden by the Mosaic law. But this is by no 
means satisfactory reasoning. The practice of 
necromancy was undoubtedly an imposture, and 
there was reason enough for forbidding it. But 
the very fact that it was prohibited proves that 
there was a common belief in the existence of men 
after death ; and it is well-nigh incredible, if 
Moses held that death is the end of existence, that 
he should not have given this as a conclusive 
reason for not resorting to necromancers. There 
is nothing of the kind. The argument derived 
from this narrative for the continued existence ot 
man after death is, therefore, unshaken. 



THE KAISING OF SAMUEL. 117 

There is another very important feature in this 
narrative. In his address to Saul, the prophet 
says, " To-morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with 
me." This, whether really the language of Sam- 
uel or the artful language of the woman imper- 
sonating Samuel, shows what was the prevailing 
conception respecting the dead. The special point 
to be noticed is this : Saul and his sons were to be 
with Samuel before being buried. Reference, there- 
fore, cannot be made to their being put in the 
grave. In what sense, then, were they to be with 
him ? Clearly in the sense that the dead have an 
existence independent of the defunct body. This, 
at least, is the conception underlying the predic- 
tion. Dr. Ives may say that it was a part of the 
woman's lie. Very well; but why should she 
have invented such a lie ? If she wished to make 
on Saul the impression of a real communication, 
must she not have accommodated herself to Saul's 
own notion of the condition of the dead? The 
only escape from this is to say that Saul himself 
had a wrong notion concerning the whole matter. 
But if we assume, as the narrative clearly implies, 
that Samuel himself was really speaking, we have 
an absolute demonstration, that, according to the 
Bible, there is an existence of the soul surviving 
the death of the body. 

The account of the transfiguration (Matt. xvii. 
1-8), as bearing on this question, Dr. Ives explains 
away on the strength of Christ's declaration (ver. 9) 



118 MAN EXISTENT AFTER DEATH. 

that it was a "vision." It was therefore, he 
thinks, not an actual reality, but only a prophetic 
view of something that was yet to be. " Like the 
visions of the Apocalypse, and others foretelling 
future events, it was in type or symbol " (p. 76). 
He argues that the vision of the transfiguration 
was the fulfilment of the promise made by Christ 
six days before : " There be some standing here 
which shall not taste of death till they see the 
Son of man coming in his kingdom " (Matt. xvi. 
28). Now, this kingdom, he says, was something 
future, — something not to be realized till Christ's 
second coming, according to such passages as 2 
Tim. iv. 1 : " Christ, who shall judge the quick 
and dead at his appearing and his kingdom." 
Therefore, he concludes, Elijah and Moses ap- 
peared only in the sense that that which was to 
be in the future was manifested to the disciples in 
a state of prophetic inspiration. 

But to this we reply : 1. It is not true, as Dr. 
Ives asserts, that the kingdom of Christ is always 
described in the New Testament as something 
future, and contemporaneous with his second com- 
ing. Undoubtedly this is very often what is meant. 
But how can this meaning be adhered to in such 
passages as Matt. iii. 2, iv. 17, Mark i. 15, in which 
it is said, " The kingdom of heaven is at hand " ? 
Paul speaks to the Colossians (i. 13) of the Fa- 
ther, " who hath delivered us from the power of 
darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom 



* THE TRANSFIGURATION. 119 

of his dear Son." He says again (Rom. xiv. 17), 
" The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but 
righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy 
Ghost." Surely this was not something which 
was to be entirely unknown till the distant future. 
In the very passage (Luke xvii. 21) which Dr. 
Ives takes so much pains to interpret the same 
thing is taught. It is true, as he says, that it 
ought to be translated, " The kingdom of God is 
among you." But this, no less than the rendering 
of the English version, describes the kingdom of 
God as something present^ and not future. 2. The 
statement that the sight of the transfiguration was 
the direct and specific fulfilment of the promise 
recorded just before is without sufficient founda- 
tion. That promise is precisely analogous to the 
one in Mark xiii. 30, where it is said, in reference 
to the predicted coming of the Son of man (ver. 
26) and the accompanying events, " Verily I say 
unto you, that this generation shall not pass till 
all these things be done." We cannot stop to dis- 
cuss the problem suggested by this statement ; 
but it is obvious that the promise here refers to no 
mere vision of a future kingdom. These things 
were to take place during the lifetime of the exist- 
ing generation. 3. A vision may as well have 
reference to a present as to a future event. Thus^ 
Stephen (Acts vii. 31) calls what Moses saw at 
the bush a vision. The Lord spoke to Ananias 
at Damascus concerning Saul, and the condition in 



120 MAN EXISTENT AFTER DEATH. 

which he then was to be found. In fact, nowhere 
in the New Testament, unless in the case before 
us, is orama (vision) used in reference to any thing 
future. 4. Having thus seen that there is nothing 
requiring us to understand this vision as relating 
to the distant future, we find positive indications 
that it does not have such a reference ; for we 
read (Luke ix. 31) that Moses and Elijah not only 
appeared, but spoke of Christ's "decease which 
he should accomplish at Jerusalem." If the whole 
appearance was a presentation of what was to be 
long after Christ's death, how is it conceivable 
that they should be represented as talking about 
that death as something still future ? This, be it 
remembered, is the only specific thing, besides the 
bare fact of the appearance of the three persons 
together, which is reported to us concerning this 
remarkable event. 5. Dr. Ives says, that, "if a 
real Moses and Elijah appeared thus to the dis- 
ciples, it contradicts other scriptures" (p. 77). 
The contradiction consists, as he would have us 
understand, in the fact, that, according to Acts 
xxvi. 23 and Col. i. 18, Christ was to be " the first 
that should rise from the dead." Therefore, says 
our author, " It were impossible that Moses, by a 
resurrection into glory, should thus precede his 
Lord." But this is assuming that Moses and 
Elijah had their resurrection-bodies, about which 
nothing is said. The question before us is, not 
whether they had their spiritual bodies, but wheth- 



WHERE AKE ENOCH AND ELIJAH? 121 

er they were in existence. 6. In another place 
(p. 193) Dr. Ives considers the question, " Where, 
on this view [of Sheol], do you put Enoch and 
Elijah, who did not see death?" He replies, 
" The full answer to that question has not been 
revealed to us." This is very true. But it would 
be well if the bearing of these cases on his gen- 
eral theory had been more carefully considered: 
without it, such reply has much the appearance 
of an evasion of a difficulty. Dr. Ives holds that 
there is no such thing as a man, as distinct from 
a human organism. " The man himself, as such, 
is a soul " (p. 34) ; and a soul is nothing but an 
organism (p. 107). Well, then, either Elijah and 
Enoch are still existing somewhere in the form of 
their earthly bodies, or they are not. To suppose 
that those same bodies are still somewhere exist- 
ent is too hard a supposition for any one. If Dr. 
Ives believed this, he would find no difficulty in 
supposing that Moses and Elijah (at least Elijah) 
may have realli/ appeared to the disciples. Evi- 
dently he assumes that they had not the same 
bodies as when they were on the earth. But then 
comes tliis dilemma : Either they had their resur- 
rection-bodies (which Dr. Ives denies), or they 
had (on Dr. Ives's theory of the soul) some other 
kind of body. But, if we make this supposition, 
then we have a third kind of body, — something 
intermediate, say, between the earthly and the 
heavenly. And if so, then who shall say that 



122 MAN EXISTENT AFTER DEATH. 

others, too, may not have some provisional body 
between deatli and the resurrection ? 

Our Lord's declaration to the thief on the cross, 
" Verily I say unto thee. To-day shalt thou be with 
me in paradise " (Luke xxiii. 43), Dr. Ives dis- 
poses of very easily (p. 65, seq.}. He transposes the 
comma after " thee " to the next word, making it 
read, " I say unto thee to-day. Thou shalt be," &c. 
Liasmuch as, from the nature of the case, the ut- 
terance is made when it is made, i.e., to-day, the 
reader's first reflection must be that "to-day" adds 
nothing to the declaration. Of course the promise 
was not made the day before, nor the day after. 
Dr. Ives, apparently feeling this objection, thus par- 
aphrases the language : " In the unending glory and 
joy of that paradise yet to be, thou shalt not only • 
be remembered by the King, but thou shalt he with 
him ; for the King himself this day has said it " ! 
But the ordinary reader will still feel the difficulty, 
and will not be able to see the use of the phrase, 
even though it be printed in small capitals; in- 
deed, the very fact that no emphasis can be put 
into the word otherwise than by the mode of 
printing it will be regarded as a most serious testi- 
mony against the doctor's efforts to amend the 
punctuation of the passage. 

The grammatical fact is, that the position of 
emphasis for this phrase " to-day " is at the begin- 
ning of the sentence. Thus, in Mark xiv. 30, we 
read, "This day, even in this night, . . . thou 



' ^x 



CHEIST'S PROMISE TO THE THIEF, 123 

shalt deny me thrice." So Luke iv. 21 : " He 
began to say unto them, This day is this scripture 
fulfilled in your ears." Acts xiii. 33 : " Thou art 
my Son ; this day have I begotten thee." Heb. iii. 
7, 15, iv. 7 : " To-day, if ye will hear his voice, 
harden not your hearts." So also Matt. xxi. 28, 
the words in the Greek are in this order : " Son, go, 
to-day work in my vineyard." Now, on any sup- 
position, the phrase is here emphatic. The pre- 
sumption, therefore, is, that it belongs to that 
clause in which it occupies the emphatic position. 

The simple truth is, that no one would ever have 
thought of connecting the words in the manner 
proposed by Dr. Ives and others, were it not for 
the sake of harmonizing the passage with the sup- 
posed teachings of other parts of Scripture. Dr. 
Ives lays great stress on the meagreness and irrele- 
vancy of Christ's promise on the common interpre- 
tation : " Irrelevant," he says, " because it ignores 
the royal coming of which the suppliant speaks ; 
niggardly, because it promises but a few hours of 
companionship with the Lord" (p. 68). As if all 
that future glory and permanent companionship 
were not involved in the promise of immediate 
fellowship! The thief asks to be remembered 
when the Lord comes in his kingdom. Jesus in 
his answer promises him that, and even more : 
^''To-day — not in the distant future only — to-day 
Bhalt thou be with me in paradise." 

Phil. i. 21 : " For to me to live is Christ, and to 



124 MAN EXISTENT AFTER DEATH. 

die is gain." Of this passage Dr. Ives says (p. 
83), " Is it possible to believe Paul says, in speak- 
ing of magnifying Christ [as he does in ver. 20], 
' For me to live is for Christ's advantage, and to die 
is for mi/ own^? Ah! indeed, he has not the least 
thought of himself, except as, whether living oi 
dying, magnifying his Lord : not one word of what 
he himself may or may not gain in the future ; it is 
what the Lord shall gain from his death, if he sees 
fit to permit it." It may not avail with our author 
to object that this exposition is contrary to what 
readers and commentators generally and naturally 
find the passage to mean. But we must call atten- 
tion to some strange inconsistencies in his own 
explanation of this verse and the context. In ver. 
20 Paul had said, "Christ shall be magnified in 
my body, whether it be by life or by death." 
Accordingly, says Dr. Ives, when in the next verse 
he speaks of his death as a gain, he must mean a 
gain, an advantage, to Christ. In reply to this, it 
is obvious to remark : 1. Paul says, " To me to die 
is gain : " Dr. Ives makes him say, " To Christ to 
die is gain." 2. If Dr. Ives's explanations were 
correct, we should have to understand that Paul's 
death would be a better thing for Christ's cause 
than his living would be. But, on the contrary, 
Paul immediately after says that " to abide in the 
flesh is more needful " for the Philippian Chris- 
tians ; and therefore he is confident that he shall 
continue with them. 3. In ver. 23 Paul says, 



PAUL'S DESIRE TO DEPART. 125 

" I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to 
depart, and to be with Christ, which is far better." 
Dr. Ives says on this (p. 84), with reference to the 
English version, " Certain words have been omit- 
ted, and others evidently modified in meaning, 
seemingly for a purpose. Doubtful indeed the 
cause which is upheld by any thing like unfair 
dealing ! " This, by the way, is only one of many 
insinuations sprinkled through the book against 
the honesty of the translators of our Bible. Such 
accusations are quite unworthy of one who pro- 
fesses to have the mind of Christ. In the present 
case there is especially no occasion for them, inas- 
much as it is hard to see what essential difference 
is brought out in Dr. Ives's own version of the pas- 
sage. He renders it (including the last clause of 
ver. 22), " Which I shall choose for myself I know 
not : for I am straitened [troubled] by both ; hav- 
ing the intense desire for the departing and being 
with Christ, for very much better is this." He 
then goes on to say that "the departing" here 
does not refer to his death, but to his hope of being 
"caught up to meet the Lord in the air." The 
departing, he says, means " that departing which 
to his mind is inseparably associated with the mani- 
fested presence of his Lord." Now, as to all this, 
it is certainly very singular, that after having just 
before spoken about death and life, and weighed 
their several claims upon his choice, he should 
now, when he speaks of " departing," have no ref- 



126 MAN EXISTENT AFTER DEATH. 

erence to deatli at all. It is doubly strange, on 
Dr. Ives's theory ; for, according to him, it is incon- 
ceivable that in ver. 21 Paul can be thinking at 
all of his own advantage ; yet he implies that here, 
in ver. 23, Paul is thinking of nothing else ! But 
that which absolutely and irrefutably overthrows 
Dr. Ives's exposition is this : In the following 
verse Paul says; " Nevertheless, to abide in the 
flesh is more needful for you." That is, he con- 
trasts his " departing " and his " abiding in the 
flesh ; " and, while he longs for the former, he says 
that the latter is more needful for the Philippian 
Christians. But if the departing means, as Dr. 
Ives claims, the being caught up in the air at the 
coming of Christ, then, according to Paul's doc- 
trine, in the very passage which Dr. Ives refers 
to (1 Thess. iv. 16, 17), all the living saints were 
to share that blessing together, — the Philippians^ 
therefore, included. If, then, this is what Paul 
referred to, there could have been no " strait " in 
the case. What he desired for himself — viz., to 
depart — he had equal reason to desire for them. 
Pie could not have it without their having it too. 
In short, there was no such alternative possible as 
he describes between his departing and his abiding 
in the flesh for the sake of the Philippian Chris- 
tians. This reply is one from which there can be 
absolutely no escape. This passage, therefore, 
presents the clearest possible proof, that, when 
Paul spoke of " departing," he meant the same as 



BEING ABSENT FR0:M THE BODY. 127 

when he had before spoken of " dying ; " and that 
he regarded death, not as putting him out of exist- 
ence, but as ushering him into the presence of his 
Saviour. 

This conclusion is confirmed (if confirmation 
can be needed) by 2 Tim. iv. 6, where, unques- 
tionably, Paul speaks of death : " I am now ready 
to be offered, and the time of my departure is at 
hand." This passage, moreover, is to be added to 
those introduced to us by Dr. Ives, which imply 
that death is not the termination of existence. 
How can such an extermination be called a depart- 
ure? It is impossible not to understand this to 
imply that Paul meant that Ae, by his approach- 
ing death, was to be removed^ not annihilated. 

Not much more successful is our author in his 
exposition of 2 Cor. v. 1-8. Paul says, in the 
eighth verse, "We are . . . willing rather to be 
absent from the body, and to be present with the 
Lord." Dr. Ives understands this to mean simply, 
absent from this body, " this temporary tent, and 
to be present with the Lord" (p. 89). What 
Paul desires, he says, as shown by the preceding 
verses, in which he expresses a longing to "be 
clothed upon," is to obtain the immortal resurrec- 
tion-body. Very possible; but the real pith of 
the argument derived from this and similar pas- 
sages Dr. Ives wholly fails to see. Paul says, " In 
this [house] we groan." "Tfe that are in this 
tabernacle." " We are at home in the body," &c. 



128 MAN EXISTENT AFTER DEATH. 

According to Dr. Ives, the " house " (here figura- 
tively used for the body) is the man. Paul has 
no right to speak of himself as in it : a house can- 
not be in itself. Moreover, in ver. 3, Paul says, 
"If so be that being clothed we shall not be found 
naked ; " or, more accurately, " If so be that we 
shall be found clothed, not naked." What is the 
nahedness here ? It is evidently the opposite of 
being clothed, and the being clothed is evidently 
being in a body. Paul, then, while deprecating 
such a state, yet speaks of it as possible that he 
could exist without a body. According to Dr. 
Ives, this being naked can mean nothing but being 
non-existent. If Paul " meant just that, why did 
not he say just that ? " (vide Dr. Ives, p. 20.) 

Another passage considered by Dr. Ives is 1 
Pet. iii. 18-20, relating to Christ's preaching to 
the spirits in prison. We are not disposed to lay 
much stress on this obscure and much-vexed pas- 
sage ; but the treatment which our author bestows 
upon it is so good an illustration of his style of 
reasoning, that we dwell on it a moment. This 
statement, he says, cannot be taken literally, be- 
cause the Bible tells us that " the dead know not 
any thing " (Eccles. ix. 5) ; that, when men die, 
their '' thoughts perish " (Ps. cxlvi. 4), &c. : there- 
fore such beings cannot be preached to. But if 
this is conclusive, then it is hard to see why so 
long a book need have been written. The author 
needed only to begin by quoting these and simi- 



THE CLOUD OF WITNESSES. 129 

lar passages ; and then, in reference to all other 
passages which seem as clearly to show that the 
dead are not non-existent, he might simply say, as 
he does say here, " The Bible doctrine makes short 
work with such a fancy" (p. 90). But this way 
of applying the great "law of' the literal and the 
figurative " will hardly suit those who cannot see 
why it is not just as easy to turn the whole argu- 
ment end for end, and to " make short work " with 
all passages which seem to impl}^ the cessation of 
existence at death, by saying, that, as they are 
inconsistent with the others, they must be under- 
stood figuratively. 

Another passage is Heb. xii. 1 : " Wherefore, see- 
ing we are compassed about with so great a cloud 
of witnesses," &c. Against the theory that this 
describes the Old-Testament saints as existing wit- 
nesses of the Christian race which the readers are 
exhorted to run with patience. Dr. Ives (p. 98) urges 
that the phrase rendered, "are compassed about 
with," literally translated, would read, " having ly- 
ing around us." He therefore regards it as point- 
ing to the dead saints lying in their graves. How 
little is proved by this is shown by the fact, that 
in no case, where the verb here used (^perikeimai) 
elsewhere occurs in the New Testament, does it 
bear the literal meaning of lying. In Mark ix. 42, 
and Luke xvii. 2, it is rendered " hanged about " 
(used of a millstone about the neck) ; in Acts 
xxviii. 20, " bound with " (of a chain) ; and in 



130 MAN EXISTENT AFTER DEATH. 

Heb. V. 2, "compassed" (of infirmity). Dr. Ives 
next argues that martyron^ here rendered "wit- 
nesses," does not mean " spectators," but those who 
bear testimony, though it be by death. No doubt 
that this is the primary notion : yet a man is quali- 
fied to act as witness by being a spectator ; so that 
often the latter idea is clearly involved, and be- 
comes even the most prominent, as 1 Tim. vi. 12 : 
" Thou . . . hast professed a good profession be- 
fore many witnesses." Still we admit that the 
meaning may be, " We are surrounded by a great 
company of those who have borne testimony to the 
truth." But if, as Dr. Ives would have us think, 
these witnesses were wholly extinct, it is hard to 
see what special stimulus there could be in the 
fact of their lying round about the living. In- 
deed, it cannot properly be said that they were 
lying there, or anywhere else. It might have been 
said that the thought of what those saints had been 
in their lifetime should serve as a stimulus ; but 
to represent them as then surrounding the living, 
v/hether in a recumbent posture or any other, 
could have had no pertinence and no sense if the 
writer really regarded them as non-existent. 

In this connection our author refers to Heb. 
xii. 23, where occurs the expression, " the spirits 
of just men made perfect." Against the supposi- 
tion that this can refer to the saints that are de- 
ceased, and describes them as already "enjoying 
the supreme felicity of the heavenly world," he 



THE SPIRITS OF THE JUST IVIADE PERFECT. 131 

adduces the passage in xi. 40, where, he says, we 
are told that the dead saints are not yet made per- 
fect. This must be taken in connection with the 
view which he elsewhere (p. 296, seq.^ presents, 
— that being '' perfect " or " perfected " means the 
same as attaining the resurrection-body. 

Now, to this the reply is obvious. In the first 
place, xi. 40 does not say that the dead saints are 
not yet made perfect. It says, " God having pro- 
vided some better thing for us, that they [the dead 
heroes of faith] without us should not be made 
perfect." What that "better thing" is we are 
clearly told in vii. 22, "By so much was Jesus 
made a surety of a better testament ; " and viii. 6, 
" But now hath he obtained a more excellent min- 
istry, by how much also he is the mediator of a 
better covenant, which was established upon better 
promises." In other words. Christians are de- 
scribed as enjoying the benefits of the new and 
more excellent dispensation ; while the ancient 
saints "died in faith, not having received the 
promises" (xi. 13, 39). Those saints were not 
made perfect ; for " the law made nothing perfect ; 
but the bringing in of a better hope did " (vii. 19). 
They therefore, " without us," could not be made 
perfect ; i.e., they could not, before the Christian 
dispensation, enjoy the full benefit of it. Nothing 
can be clearer than that the passage in question 
does not say, that, after the introduction of the 
better testament, they are not yet made perfect. 



132 MAJSr EXISTENT AFTER DEATH. 

But, in the second place, it is not true that being 
" perfect," or " made perfect," always, or general- 
ly, or in fact ever^ means attaining a resurrection- 
body. What sense would it make to read in Matt. 
V. 48, "Be ye possessed of a resurrection-body, 
even as your Father which is in heaven has a res- 
urrection-body " ? The same nonsense results in 
1 Cor. ii. 6, " We speak wisdom among them that 
are perfect," if we interpret " perfect " in the way 
proposed. In Phil. iii. 15 Paul says, "Let us 
therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded." 
Does- this refer to the possessors of glorified bodies ? 
The word teleios has everywhere a moral sense 
when it is applied to men. Cf. Jas. iii. 2, "If 
any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect 
man." Likewise where the verb (teleioo) is used. 
It is commonly employed with reference to things, 
as "days" (Luke ii. 43), "work" (John iv. 34), 
the "scripture" (xix. 28), one's "course" (Acts 
XX. 24), "faith" (Jas. ii. 22), "love" (1 John 
iv. 17). When used With reference to persons, it 
is several times applied to Christ as " made per- 
fect " by his sufferings and death (Luke xiii. 32; 
Heb. ii. 10, v. 9, vii. 28). The other cases are as 
follows : John xvii. 23, Christ prays that his dis- 
ciples may be " made perfect in one ; " 1 John iv. 
18, " He that feareth is not made perfect in love." 
The moral sense of the word is obvious enough 
here. Equally so in Heb. ix. 9, " Sacrifices that 
could not make him that did the service perfect ; " 



THE SPIRITS OF THE xTUST MADE PERFECT. 133 

and Heb. x. 1, " The law . . . can never with 
those sacrifices . . . make the comers thereunto 
perfect." In Heb. x. 14 we are told that Christ 
" by one offering hath perfected forever them that 
are sanctified ; " which is manifestl}^ antithetic to 
the verse quoted just before. The law could not 
make perfect ; but Christ has made perfect. Here, 
then, we find also the meaning of xi. 40, already- 
quoted. As being under the law, thev could not 
be made perfect ; but the gospel does make perfect. 
The verb in all these passages conveys the sense 
of fully accomplishing the work of deliverance 
which God purposes for his people. There remain 
only two passages more, — Phil. iii. 12 and Heb. 
xii. 23. In the former Paul says, " Not as though 
I had already attained, either were already perfect 
[perfected]." This is immediately preceded by 
the passage, " If I might by any means attain the 
resurrection of the dead ; " and one might natu- 
rally be tempted to suppose that here he means to 
say, "Not as though I had already attained this 
resurrection." But the verb in the Greek original 
i> not the same in the two verses; and the object 
of the verb in ver. 12 is left unexpressed, and is to 
be gathered from what follows. It is the " prize " 
\ er. 14) which, in the .Christian race which he 
pictures himself as running, he is struggling to 
gain. The perfection which in ver. 12 he says he 
has not attained, but which in ver. 15 he implies 
that in some sense Christians may already here 



134 MAN EXISTENT AFTER DEATH. 

possess, is, as the whole drift of the passage shows, 
a moral one. But, even if we should understand 
the resurrection as the thing not attained, that 
does not identify this with the being perfected; 
for he says, "Not as though I had already at- 
tained, or were already perfect." 

As to the passages in which Christ is described 
as made perfect, Heb. ii. 10 explains them all. He 
was made perfect "through sufferings." As the 
preceding verse affirms, " for the suffering of death 
he was crowned with glory and honor." The same 
connection between his sufferings and his perfec- 
tion is affirmed in v. 8, 9, where we read, " Though 
he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the 
things which he suffered ; and, being made perfect, 
he became the author of eternal salvation unto all 
them that obey him." Christ was perfectly fitted 
for his work by his sufferings and death : in con- 
sequence of them he is exalted to be a Prince and 
a Saviour unto all that accept him. In none of 
these passages is there any specific reference to a 
resurrection-body as constituting the substance of 
what is meant by being " perfected." 

So, then, we come again to Heb. xii. 22, 23, where 
we read that Christians "are come unto Mount 
Sion, and unto -the city of the living God, the 
heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable com- 
pany of angels, to the general assembly and church 
of the first-born which are written in heaven, and 
to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of iust 



THE SOULS UNDER THE ALTAR. 135 

men made perfect." There is an express contrast 
between what is enjoyed under the new dispensa- 
tion and what was experienced under the old one, 
which was ushered in amidst " fire, and blackness, 
and darkness, and tempest," and frightful demon- 
strations (vers. 18, 19). Who, then, are these just 
men made perfect, into whose company we are in- 
troduced? According to Dr. Ives, they are those 
who are yet to be made perfect; i.e., raised from 
the dead. But we are told here that we are come 
into this company, and that this is the difference 
between us and the saints under the old economy. 
But if it all refers to the future time, when all the 
pious will have received their full reward, then the 
Old-Testament saints as well as others will be 
sharing the blessing, and the contrast is entirely 
obliterated. Inasmuch, then, as this heavenly com- 
pany is one to whose fellowship Christians are rep- 
resented as already introduced, and inasmuch as it 
includes the spirits of just men already made per- 
fect, the passage furnishes a very important and 
positive refutation of the doctrine that there are no 
redeemed men now in heaven. 

There remains biit one more passage discussed 
by Dr. Ives in the chapter under consideration; 
viz., Rev. vi. 9, 10: "I saw under the altar the 
souls of them that were slain for the word of God, 
and for the testimony which they held ; and they 
cried with a loud voice." This seems to be a very 
explicit affirmation that "dead souls" are not 



136 MAN EXISTENT AFTER DEATH. 

extinct souls. One who holds that "the possi- 
bility of the literal meaning's being intended 
must be exhausted before a figurative meaning 
can be considered" would be expected to see in 
this verse a very clear recognition of the contin- 
ued existence and consciousness of souls after 
death. But we have already seen how easily this 
great principle of interpretation is abandoned by 
our author whenever he finds a passage which 
conflicts with his doctrine of the soul; and we 
are, therefore, not surprised to find that he here 
resorts to a figurative interpretation. The 
" souls," he says, are nothing but blood (the blood 
being called the life, or soul, in Lev. xvii. 14, 
&c.) ; and the blood crying out is only the same 
as when Abel's blood is said (Gen. iv. 10) to cry 
unto Jehovah from the ground (p. 81). 

It is hard to decide how to treat such a mode 
of exegesis. A mind which is capable of taking 
such a view of scriptural language seems to us 
beyond the reach of conviction. Yet we will 
undertake to expose the untenableness of the 
exposition. When Abel's blood is said to cry out 
for vengeance, no one can for a moment mistake 
the figurativeness of the language. There is 
only one way of understanding it. No one would 
imagine that the blood literally spoke. But here 
it is not bloody but souls^ that are said to cry out. 
There is no incongruity between subject and 
object suggesting a figure. To say that "souls" 



THE SOULS UNDER THE ALTAR. IST 

means " blood " is introducing an incongruity. 
Moreover, the context makes such a substitution 
(for which no excuse can be found in any parallel 
passage in all the Bible) impossible ; for we read 
not only that the souls eried^ but that they called 
for the avenging of their hlood^ (note, the blood of 
the bloods /) and not only this, but that " white 
robes were given unto every one of them; and it 
was said unto them, that they should rest yet for 
a little season." Think of it ! White robes were 
given to every one of those bloods! And the 
bloods (ver. 11) "were told that they should rest 
yet for a little season, until their fellow-servants 
also and their bretliren, that should be killed as 
they were, should be fulfilled " ! In precisely the 
same way, moreover, John speaks of the souls of 
the dead, when he says (Rev. xx. 4), " I saw the 
souls of them that were beheaded for the witness 
of Jesus." Does this mean blood? Dr. Ives has 
no thought of such a thing here, because it is 
immediately said of them that "they lived and 
reigned with Christ a thousand years." But the 
j>arallelism between the two passages is perfect. 
In both the Revelator is said to have seen the souh 
of the dead. In the latter case it is not even said 
that he saw them after they were raised from the 
dead: it is rather implied that it was before the 
resurrection. 

We have now taken into view all the passages 
which Dr. Ives regards as at all even seeming to 



138 MAN EXISTEN.T AFTER DEATH. 

confirm the doctrine of an immortal, immaterial 
soul ; and the reader may judge how much ground 
there is for his conclusion, that " not a single pas- 
sage examined sustains the inference of an immor- 
tal, immaterial soul, but that each, judged by its 
relation to the context and to other scripture, 
directly condemns the inference " (p. 101). So far 
from having made good this claim, he has in every 
case utterly failed to overthrow the view which 
he opposes. These passages stand as irrefragable 
proofs, that, according to the Bible, death does not 
put an end to the existence of the human spirit. 



GENERAL PRESUMPTIONS. 139 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE OLD-TESTAlklENT DOCTRINE CONCERNING THE 
STATE OF THE DEAD. 

"TTTHAT has already been said has incidentally 
V V anticipated in part the statement of what 
is taught in the Old Testament respecting the 
state of human souls after death. But it is neces- 
sary to treat this topic more particularly. 

1. A very important fact, and one justly empha- 
sized in discussions of this question, ^is this, — that 
the Jews came out from among a people who 
strongly held to the belief of a future life for all 
men. The Jews must have been familiar with 
the notion ; and, if Moses regarded the doctrine 
as a heathenish superstition, he would undoubt- 
edly have directly denounced it. But we find 
nothing of the kind. 

2. Another significant fact is the prevalence of 
necromancy, — the practice of consulting the spir- 
its of the dead. Of course it is not to be denied 
that the practice was undoubtedly an imposture. 
But the point is, that such a practice implies a 
prevalent belief in the continued existence of the 



140 OLD-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY. 

soul after death. It continued to be so exten- 
sive, that even Saul, who had tried to banish 
necromancers from the land, yet resorted to one 
in his extremity. When Moses prohibited this 
practice (Deut. xviii. 11 ; Lev. xx. 27), he gives 
no intimation that the reason for it is at all 
that there are no dead persons to consult, as he 
would naturally have done if that had been the 
truth revealed to him : he simply forbids consult- 
i7ig them. The impression left is that the fact of 
the continued existence of the soul, not being 
denied, is virtually affirmed. The same remark 
holds of the other passages in the Old Testament 
in which this practice is alluded to. 

3. Again : there are certain phrases used with 
reference to death which are very significant. 
Thus the deceased one is often said to be 
" gathered unto his fathers " (e.g., Judg. ii. 10) ; 
he is said to " sleep with his fathers " (1 Kings ii. 
10, and very often of the kings in the Books of 
Kings and Chronicles), or to "go unto his fathers" 
(e.g.. Gen. xv. 15). The sleeping is expressed by 
two distinct words, — most often by shahah^ which 
properly means, and is more often translated, 
" lie," or " lie down ; " though it is very frequently 
used with the accessory notion of going to sleep ; 
as, e.g., in Gen. xxviii. 11, where this one word 
is rendered in our Bible "lay down to sleep." 
Occasionally the word more properly meaning 
" to sleep " (^yasheri) is also used respecting 



SLEEPING WITH THE FATHERS. 141 

death : as Job iii. 13 ; Jer. li. 39, 57 ; Ps. xiii. 3 ; 
Dan. xii. 2. It is easy to say that this is merely 
a euphemism, or that, when men were said to lie 
down with, or to go unto, the fathers, this was 
only another way of saying that they went into 
the grave as the fathers had gone before them. 
But this is too easy a solution. The sleeping 
is often spoken of as preceding the burial (e.g., 
1 Kings ii. 10, xv. 24) ; and often the burial-place 
was distant from that of the fathers, as in the case 
of David. So individuals are said to "go to" 
individual friends who have died. Thus Jacob 
expected to go to be with Joseph (Gen. xxxvii. 
35) ; though he did not regard him as buried at 
all, but devoured bj wild beasts. So David said 
of his dead child, "I shall go to him; but he 
shall not return to me" (2 Sam. xii. 23). Even 
if such language should be looked on as prompted 
by a natural yearning for the departed, by a love 
which imagines the dead to be still existent, this 
only goes to show that there was an instinct in 
the Hebrews inclining them to attribute continued 
existence and a dwelling-place to the spirits of the 
deceased. 

4. But we are not confined to these few indica- 
tions. What is implied in these modes of expres- 
sion is more positively and clearly affirmed in what 
the Old Testament says about Sheol^ the place to 
which the dead go. As is well known, this word 
is mistranslated in our Bible. It occurs in tho 



142 OLD-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY. 

Hebrew Bible sixty-five times. It is translated 
thirty-one times by " hell," thirty-one times by 
" the grave," and three times by " the pit." ^ All 
scholars agree that the word means neither *'heU" 
nor "grave." For the latter the Hebrew has a dis- 
tinct word (heher). It would be better to transfer 
the word " Sheol " into our Bible, and let it ex- 
plain itself. Any reader would then soon learn 
that Sheol is described as a place to which the dead 
go down (Num. xvi. 30) ; as a place in the lower 
parts of the earth (Ezek. xxxi. 14, 15) ; as a large 
place where multitudes are congregated together 
(Isa. xiv. 9 ; Ps. xlix. 14 ; Prov. xxvii. 20) ; as a 
place to which all men must go (Eccles. ix. 10), 
though rarely good men in particular (Gen. 
xxxvii. 35 ; Isa. xxxviii. 10 ; Job xiv. 13) are so 
represented ; while frequently it is described as 
the place to which the wicked are destined, and 
uniformly as a gloomy and dreadful place (Ps. ix. 

1 For the convenience of those who have not the means of 
identifying the passages here referred to, we append a complete 
list of the verses in which Sheol occurs in the Old Testament. 

Translated by " grave: " Gen. xxxvii. 35, xlii. 38, xliv. 29, 31; 
1 Sam. ii. 6; 1 Kings ii. 6, 9; Job vii. 9, xiv. 13, xvii. 13, xxi. 13, 
xxiv. 19; Ps. vi. 5, xxx. 3, xxxi. 17, xlix. 14, 14, 15, Ixxxviii. 3, 
Ixxxix. 48, cxli. 7; Prov. i. 12, xxx. 16; Eccles. ix. 10; Cant. viii. 6; 
Isa. xiv, 11, xxxviii. 10, 18; Ezek. xxxi. 15; Hos. xiii. 14, 14. 

Translated by " hell: " Deut. xxxii. 22; 2 Sam. xxii. G; Job xi. 
8, xxvi. 6; Ps. ix. 17, xvi. 10, xviii. 5, Iv. 15; Ixxxvi. 13, cxvi. 3, 
exxxix. 8; Prov. v. 5, vii. 27, ix. 18, xv. 11, 24, xxiii. 14, xx^ai. 20; 
Isa. V. 14, xiv. 9, 15, xxviii. 15, 18, Ivii. 9; Ezek. xxxi. 16, 17, xxxii. 
21, 27; Amos ix. 2; Jon. ii. 2; Hab. ii. 5. 

Translated by " pit: " Num. xvi. 30, 33; Job x^di. 16. 



SHEOL. 143 

17, xviii. 5, xlix. 14, 15 ; Prov. v. 5, xv. 11, 24, 
xxiii. 14 ; Isa. xiv. 11 ; Ezek. xxxi. 16). Accord- 
ingly, sometimes the pious are represented as 
exempted from it (Ps. xvi. 10, as correctly trans- 
lated, see p. 155 ; Ps. xlix. 15, Ixxxvi. 13 ; Hos. 
xiii. 14). 

If, now, we bear in mind that there is but one 
Sheol, it is manifest that it is not the same thing 
*as the grave^ there being as many graves as there 
are individuals buried. That Sheol is not the 
same as what is now understood by " hell " is 
also commonly acknowledged; though, it being 
predominantly described as a dolorous place, and 
as the place whither the wicked are sent, the lat- 
ter rendering often seems not inappropriate. But 
so much is certain : If the Old-Testament writers 
had had no idea of a post-mortem existence of the 
dead, if in their minds death put an utter end to 
human existence, it is impossible that this concep- 
tion of Sheol should ever have arisen, and obtained 
general currency. 

"What, now, does Dr. Ives have to say on this 
point? On p. 193 he sets out to answer the 
question, " What is the meaning of Sheol, as 
used in the Bible ? " He opens the discussion by 
remarking, "The question is much simplified in 
that it really lies between two meanings, so 
opposed to each other that both cannot be right. 
Two renderings, the grave and hell^ are used by 
our translators, each in nearly equal proportion." 



144 OLD-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY. 

He then examines many passages in which the 
word occurs, for the purpose of showing that in 
them it cannot mean helL This, of course, is 
easily done. Then he concludes, " Thus it is 
made apparent that the grave is the correct ren- 
dering of Hebrew Sheol" (p. 200). We are at a 
loss to know how to characterize this specimen of 
biblical interpretation. How, we ask, did this 
question become so " much simplified " ? Inas-- 
much as all respectable scholars agree that Sheol 
means neither the grave nor hell, it is evident that 
we are indebted to Dr. Ives's bare dictum for this 
simplification. It sounds much as if one should 
argue, "Horses are either bipeds or centipedes. 
But they are certainly not centipedes: therefore 
they must be bipeds." The strange character of 
this arbitrary reasoning is enhanced when we find, 
that, even according to Dr. Ives himself, Sheol 
does not exactly mean the grave either : for he 
says, " Sheol means not the separate grave of 
each individual (a different Hebrew word ex- 
presses that thought) ; but it is 9, general term for 
the state of the dead, whether they lie in careful 
sepulture, or, as Jacob imagined of Joseph, they 
are torn and devoured by beasts of the field " 
(p. 198). On p. 193 he says that Sheol "denotes 
the place or state of the dead." Here he calls it 
only the " state " of the dead ; but adds, " This 
general state of the dead was conceived of as a 
vast pit in the darkness of ' the lower parts of the 



DR. rVES ON THE MEANING OF SHEOL. 145 

earth,' — a vast burying-place, or, as we call it, 
cemetery r So, then, the " state " was a " pit," 
and must, therefore, have been a " place." It was 
a " vast " place. It was in " the lower parts of 
the earth." At any rate, it was so " conceived 
of." He goes on to say, that in this cemetery, 
according to the Bible, " the dead of all times 
j^ast lie stored away, like mummied forms, * in the 
ddes of the pit ' (Isa. xiv. 15)." 

The problem here presented is a puzzling one 
indeed, from Dr. Ives's point of view. Several 
questions press for an answer : (1) If the Bible 
tells us of such a cemetery in the lower parts of 
the earth, as something distinct from the graves 
in which the bodies of individuals really lie, then 
how is it that that distinct place ought to he trans- 
lated hy the same word as that which designates the 
individual grave? The Hebrew Bible not only 
means a distinct thing when it speaks of this 
'• cemetery," but designates it by a distinct word. 
By what right does Dr. Ives insist that this dis- 
tinction between Sheol (the general place of the 
dead) and keher (the place in which an individual 
corpse is laid) shall be obliterated in our Bible, 
and both words be indiscriminately rendered 
" grave " ? But (2) does Dr. Ives really believe 
that there is such a cemetery in the interior of 
the earth? Of course he does not. He holds 
that the bodily organism, sooner or later after 
death, is dissolved and destroyed. He does not 



146 OLD-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY. 

think there is any one common place to which., 
the dead go. On his theory of the soul, he can- 
not think so. Therefore we ask, (3) Does he 
understand the biblical description of this ceme- 
tery as a " literal " one ? Of course he does not ; 
for, if he does, then all his own theory of death 
must be abandoned. He says that the place of 
the dead was " conceived of " as such a " vast 
burying-place ; " possibly implying that he does 
not think the Bible requires us to believe that 
there is such a place. The dead, he says, accord- 
ing to this conception, lie stored away like mum- 
mies. The implication seems to be that they are 
not really mummies. He cannot himself so regard 
them. Yet he tells us, that, in the Bible, all the 
dead, even those whose bodies may have been 
torn up and eaten by beasts, were conceived as 
thus deposited, "like mummied forms," in the 
sides of the pit. We are therefore driven to 
ask, (4) Does Dr. Ives hold that the biblical de- 
scription of Sheol is to be understood as figura- 
tive f There would seem to be no doubt that he 
must so understand the descriptions. And yet it 
is remarkable that he carefullj^ avoids intimating 
that this is the case. Moreover, in the first edi- 
tion of his work, he wrote, " This general state 
of the dead, in the Oriental imagination^ was con- 
ceived of as a vast pit." But the words we have 
Italicized are omitted in the enlarged edition. 
This omission must have had a reason ; and we 



DR. IVES ON THE MEANING OF SHEOL. 147 

are unable to conceive of any, unless the author 
regarded these words as suggesting that the lan- 
guage is to be understood figuratively. Still the 
same conception of the state of the dead is allowed 
to stand. At first that was called a conception of 
the Oriental imagination. Now we are simply told 
that there ^cas such a conception ; and we are left 
to understand that perhaps it was not a mere flight 
of the imagination, a poetic conceit, in which the 
non-existent were imagined to be existent, — the de- 
composed bodies to be all restored to their original 
forms, and laid away in the sides of the great pit. 
And so we are driven back to our second question, 
— the question, whether the biblical representation 
is to be taken literally. But we can get no relief; 
for we are more certain that Dr. Ives does not 
believe that there is such a general cemetery in 
the lower part of the earth than we ^are that he 
means to disavow what he said in his first edition. 
Therefore we must ask, (5) Does Dr. Ives suppose 
that the biblical writers really believed that there 
was such a general cemetery down in the earth ? 
If he does think that they so believed, then, inas- 
much as he himself cannot so believe, he must 
regard the Bible as false. But this we know is 
not the case. Therefore we must conclude that 
he would say that the Old-Testament writers did 
not really hold any such notion. But they wrote 
as though they believed it. Dr. Ives says even 
that they so " conceived of " the matter. He can 



148 OLD-TESTA]MENT ESCHATOLOGY. 

get his knowledge of tlieir conception only from 
their writings. This conception, moreover, ap- 
pears in the plainest prose, as well as in the 
poetic writings. It appears from the beginning 
to the end of the Old-Testament period. 

The more we ask, the less light can we get, as 
to Dr. Ives's real opinion concerning this matter. 
We must bear in mind, that, in his view, the bibli- 
cal writers regarded man as material, and as put 
out of existence at death. Nevertheless, those same 
writers "conceived of" a vast pit low down in 
the earth, into which "all the dead" are somehow 
brought and stored away " like mummied forms." 
Now, this Sheol of the Bible is either a fact or a 
fancy. If it is a fact, then Dr. Ives's whole theory 
of death is overthrown. Decomposed and non- 
existent men certainly do not force their way 
through solid earth down into this cemetery. If, 
however, it is a fancy, then it is, on Dr. Ives's 
theory, a most remarkable and powerful fancy. 
The fancy that lifeless, buried bodies, putrefied 
bodies, mangled bodies, bodies eaten up by beasts, 
in short, destroyed, extinct, non-existent bodies, 
all from their several places of death, with one 
accord pick their scattered parts together, and 
travel downward, through rock, water, gravel, and 
loam, to this subterranean pit, and carefully be- 
stow themselves in the sides of it, — such a fancy 
is certainly wonderful enough to be called " Ori- 
ental." And, what is more wonderful still, this 



DR. IVES ON THE MEANING OF SHEOL. 149 

fancy somehow became a stereotyped conception. 
It was not merely the play of a single imaginative 
mind : the whole nation shared it. They all fan- 
cied that the dead bodies betook themselves, or 
were somehow taken, down to this common re- 
ceptacle. But they knew^ all the while, that there 
was not a shadow of truth in the conceptioA ! 

But it is time to speak plainly. Dr. Ives's state- 
ment that Sheol means either hell or the grave is 
utterly without foundation. He ought to know 
that the common opinion of biblical scholars, as 
well as the natural impression derived from read- 
ing the Old Testament, is, that Sheol is neither 
heU nor the grave, but the dwelling-place of 
deceased men. Why does he ignore this fact, and 
speak as if the only alternative were to render 
it "hell," or the "grave"? His conceit about 
"mummied forms" in the "sides of the pit" is 
his own, not the Bible's. The phrase, " sides of 
the pit," itself is a mistranslation. It should be 
"the bottom of the pit." But, not to dwell on 
this, he would say, we presume, that Sheol must 
be nothing but a sort of enlarged grave, because 
the Bible does not allow us to believe that there is 
any thing left of the dead but the buried bodies. 
In other words, he would argue, that as the Bible 
must be consistent with itself, and as it elsewhere 
tells us that the souls of the dead are extinct, 
therefore it cannot be that Sheol is described as 
the abode of disembodied souls ; and hence it must 



150 OLD-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY. 

be nothing but the grave. But we reply : Since 
the Bible is consistent with itself, and certainly 
does, even on Dr. Ives's own admission, describe 
Sheol as a place distinct from the grave, and as a 
place to which all the dead descend, therefore it 
cannot be that the dead are conceived as non- 
existent. This argument is certainly as legitimate 
as his ; and much more so, since it does not charge 
upon the Bible a monstrous, meaningless, and 
ridiculous fancy. In short, the biblical doctrine 
of Sheol is itself sufficient to overthrow Dr. Ives's 
whole theory. His own admission that the Bible 
represents men who are never buried in a real 
grave as, nevertheless, the inhabitants of Sheol (or 
Hades), is a virtual confession that Sheol i^ not 
the grave. His own fundamental principle, that 
the Bible must be understood as literally as possi- 
ble, requires us to believe that Sheol is something 
distinct from the grave ; that it is a place inhabited 
by real, existent beings ; and that, therefore, death 
is not the end of existence.^ 

5. To the foregoing we may add an examination 

1 Mr. Constable, in his book on Hades, affirms (p. 53) that beasts 
p:o into it, as well as men ; and hence he infers that Hades (Sheol) 
is the same as the grave. His proof is derived from a single 
passage (Ps. xlix. 14) : ** Like sheep they are laid in Sheol." Un- 
doubtedly this language, if confirmed by more of the same 
import, might naturally be understood as implying that sheep 
go to Sheol. But, when we consider that beasts are noiohere else 
described as going thither, we are justified in doubting whether 
this passage alone can be made to prove it. The passage is 
highly figurative : men are said to be put into Sheol like sheep ; 



ENOCH'S TRANSLATION. 151 

of a few particular passages illustrating the fact, 
that, in the Old Testament, death was not regarded 
as the extinction of being. 

In Gen. v. 24 we are told that "Enoch walked 
with God : and he was not ; for God took him." 
The phrase, "he was not," is the same that is 
used, for example, in reference to Joseph, " one is 
not," Gen. xlii. 13, 32, where it is equivalent to 
the statement, "one is dead;" cf. xliv. 20. The 
verse is in itself almost enigmatical in its brevity. 
It might be understood, as the passage just referred 
to shows, to be equivalent to the statement, 
"Enoch died." But we are told in Heb. xi. 5 
that " Enoch was translated, that he should not 
see death;" and the form of the statement in 
Gen. V. 24 well agrees with this inspired exposi- 
tion. 

Of course it may be said that this case proves 
nothing as to the generality of men, since Enoch 
did not die. It is true that this passage does not 
prove that the Old Testament represents all men 
as surviving death; but it does prove that the 

and then Death, it is added, is to be their shepherd (so according 
to the only correct translation). That is, the men are represented 
as heinu sheep, just as in Ps. xxiii. 1, 2, David speaks of himself as 
a sheep. The simile passes over into a metaphor. • But, even as 
I simile, it amounts to nothing more than that men are sent in 
( rowds down to Shcol as sheep are driven into their pens at 
night. If one should say that a company of men entered a 
church, following one another like a flock of sheep, it would bo 
hardly proper to infer that sheep are accustomed to go into 
churches. 



152 OLD-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGT. 

author of this account recognized the possibility, 
and in the case of Enoch the reality, of a human 
being continuing to exist after the cessation of the 
earthly life. If he had held the materialistic 
notion that the soul is the body, he could not 
have given such an account of Enoch, unless he 
assumed that the original body of Enoch was 
translated and still exists, or that his body was 
transformed into the equivalent of a resurrection- 
body. The first supposition probably no one 
would defend: the second is not warranted by 
any thing in the Bible. 

The significance of this account of Enoch's 
translation is enhanced by the circumstance, that 
the same verb (lakahJi) which is here rendered 
" took " is used in other passages with reference 
to death. Thus, in Ps. xlix. 15, we read, "But 
God will redeem my soul from the power of the 
grave [of Sheol] ; for he shall receive me." The 
word "redeem" here is used in contrast with 
what is said in vers. 7- 9, where it is affirmed con- 
cerning the wicked rich, that none of them can 
" redeem " another, so that he shall " live forever." 
After describing how these men shall all like sheep 
be put into Sheol (ver. 14), the Psalmist says, 
"But Qodi will redeem my soul from the hand of 
Sheol; for he will take me." A careful reading, 
even of the English version, shows conclusively 
that the verse cannot mean what, e.g., Dr. Ives 
(p. 322) makes it mean; viz., that this denotes 



PS. XLIX. 15. 153 

the ultimate release from Sheol at the resurrection. 
There is an obvious antithesis between the wicked 
(vers. 7-14) and the righteous, as represented by 
the Psalmist : " They cannot redeem one another 
from dying, — from going to Sheol, from seeing 
corruption " (or, rather, « the pit," — a sjTionyme 
for Sheol : cf. Ps. xvi. 10). " They cannot by their 
wealth enable one another tt) ' live forever.' But 
God will redeem my soul from the power of Sheol." 
Of course, however, physical death is not expected 
to be avoided, though- the language might be 
pressed to mean this by a rigidly strict interpreta- 
tion. The great idea of the passage is, that God 
will take his chosen ones to himself. (Hengsten- 
berg's statement, in his exposition of this pas- 
sage, that laJcahh can mean neither receive^ nor take 
to one's self, is a most extraordinary mis-statement, 
in view of the fr&quent use of lakahh in the phrase 
" take," or " take to wife," in the sense of " marry," 
and such passages as Judg. xiii. 23.) But when 
is this to happen ? The whole psalm has reference 
to the apparent prosperity of the wicked as com- 
pared with the condition of the righteous, and the 
solution of the problem is found in the different 
end which awaits them. The wicked must die ; all 
must die (ver. 10) : but the wicked shall be put 
into Sheol, and Death shall be their shepherd. 
But the righteous shall be redeemed, saved from 
this fate; for God will take them. This cannot 
reasonably be understood otherwise than as de- 



154 OLD-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY. 

scribing what takes place at death, after this present 
life is over. The saint is then " taken " to God : 
he is not put out of existence. 

Of precisely the same import is Ps. Ixxiii. 24, 
where also the same verb is used : " Thou shalt 
guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive 
me to glory." This is said after a description of 
the despondency of the Psalmist in view of the 
prosperity of the wicked. At length he had come 
to see what their "end" was (ver. 17) ; his trouble 
of mind was relieved ; and he concludes, " I am 
continually with thee ; thou hast holden me by 
my right hand. Thou shalt guide me with thy 
counsel, and afterward receive me to glory." 
There is some dispute about the translation. Some 
would translate, " Thou wilt take me after glory ; " 
i.e., " Thou wilt cause me to follow in the train of 
glory." But this is hardly worth refutation, and is 
adopted by few. Others would render, "After- 
ward thou wilt receive me in [with] glory 
[honor]." This comes practically to the same 
thing as our version. The important thing is that 
God is to receive the Psalmist. He is to receive 
him afterward. After what ? After being guided 
by God's counsel. If we attempt to make it all 
refer to this life, we make little less than nonsense 
of it. The guidance cannot be any thing that is 
to be succeeded in this life by the reception to 
honor : the guidance cannot cease before the end 
of life. Moreover, there is here a contrast be- 



PS. LXXni. 24; XVI. 10, 11. 155 

tween the Psalmist and the wicked, whose fearful 
"end" has just been portrayed. It is evident, 
therefore, that the meaning is, that, after the 
Psalmist has been guided through this life, God is 
to receive him to himself. 

Another passage, strikingly confirming and illus- 
trating the view given of these two, is Ps. xvi. 
10, 11 : " For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell ; 
neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corrup- 
tion. Thou wilt show me the path of life : in thy 
presence is fulness of joy ; at thy right hand there 
are pleasures forevermore." Ver. 10 is mistrans- 
lated in our version, as all Hebrew scholars know. 
It should read, " Thou wilt not leave my soul to 
Sheol ; neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see 
the pit." Comparing this with Ps. xlix. 9, 10, 14, 
we see at once that going to Sheol, and seeing the 
pit, are synonymous expressions, both being an- 
other way of expressing the notion of dying. The 
wicked rich men cannot keep one another, by their 
wealth, from seeing the pit: they must all die, and 
go to Sheol. But, says David, "Thou wilt not 
abandon my soul to Sheol ; thou wilt not suffer 
me to see the pit." That he has death in mind as 
the thing to which he is not to be abandoned is 
shown conclusivel} by the next verse, " Thou wilt 
show me [not the path of deaths but] tho path of 
?{/e." And what is that life ? It is " fulness of 
joy " in the divine presence ; it is the " pleasures 
forevermore " enjoyed at God's right hand. That 



156 OLD-TESTAI^IENT ESCHATOLOGY. 

is, God will "take" the pious saint to himself. 
Of course we are not to understand from this that 
David expected to be exempted from the death of 
the body. His language is poetic, and means just 
what our Lord meant when he said to Martha 
(John xi. 26), " Whosoever liveth and believeth 
in me shall never die." All the bitterness of death 
is to be removed : the saint's departure from this 
life is to be so cheered by the assurance of God's 
continued presence, that this dissolution no longer 
deserves the name of death; it is life^ rather. 
There is to be no gloomy imprisoninent in Sheol. 
The future life is to be a continuation of the 
present, of which it has already been said, " I have 
set the Lord always before me : because he is at 
my right hand, I shall not be moved " (ver. 8). 

At a later stage we shall have occasion to refer 
to other passages of the Old Testament, implying 
the fact of a future life. But the question now 
before us is not so much whether the fact of a 
future life is taught, as whether death puts an end 
to the existence of the spirit. All those who 
accept the Bible as authoritative of course believe 
in a future life : the point in dispute is, whether it 
teaches that this life is a continuance of the pres- 
ent, or teaches that the future life begins with the 
resurrection after a temporary interruption of 
existence. As to this point, one section of the 
annihilationists agree with us. 

6. We may notice, further, a word, the force of 



THE REPHABI. 157 

which is entirely concealed in our authorized ver- 
sion ; viz., Rephaim^ as used of the dead. In form 
it is in Hebrew the same as the word rendered 
sometimes "giants" (e.g., Deut. ii. 11, 20, iii. 11, 
13 ; Josh. xii. 4, xiii. 12), and sometimes " Reph- 
aim " (as Gen. xiv. 5, xv. 20 ; 2 Sam. v. 18). But 
there seems to be no perceptible connection be- 
tween this use of the word and the one by which 
it is made to designate the inhabitants of Sheol. 
In the latter sense it is employed eight times in the 
Old Testament ; and in every case, with one ex- 
ception (Isa. xxvi. 14, where it is translated " de- 
ceased "), it is rendered in our version by the word 
" dead." The passages are the following : Job 
xxvi. 5 ; Ps. Ixxxviii. 10 ; Prov. ii. 18, ix. 18, xxi. 
16 ; Isa. xiv. 9, xxvi. 14, 19. In two of these 
places it is parallel with metlmn^ the "dead." 
Thus in Ps. Ixxxviii. 10 both words are used, and 
both are translated " dead." So in Isa. xxvi. 14 : 
" They are dead, they shall not live ; they are de- 
ceased [Rephaim], they shall not rise." 

In Prov. ii. 18 it is said of the strange woman 
that "her house inclineth unto death, and her 
paths unto the Rephaim ; " and similarly she is 
described in ix. 18, "He knoweth not that the 
Rephaim are there, and that her guests are in the 
depths of Sheol." And in Prov. xxi. 16 it is said, 
"The man that wandereth out of the way of 
understanding shall remain [dwell] in the congre- 
gation of the Rephaim." 



158 OLD-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY. 

This conception of the Rephaim as a " congre- 
gation " assembled in Sheol is found also in that 
remarkable passage, Isa. xiv. 4-20. Here it i& pre- 
dicted of the king of Babjdon, that, notwithstand- 
ing his pride and power, he shall be destroyed. 
He lies down in death (ver. 8) ; and then it is said 
to him, " Sheol beneath is in commotion for thee 
to meet thee at thy coming : it stirreth up for thee 
the Rephaim, all the chief men of the earth; it 
hath raised up from their thrones all the kings 
of the nations" (ver. 9). Then in ver. 10 the 
Rephaim are represented as addressing the new- 
comer, "Art thou also become weak as we? art 
thou become like unto us?" After making all 
allowance for the poetic and dramatic character 
of this description, it must be conceded that the 
prophet here makes the impression that the Reph- 
aim are real existent beings. They are the inhab- 
itants of Sheol. Though he may be supposed 
to draw on his imagination in thus picturing 
them as peculiarly excited by the advent of the 
king of Babylon, we are not justified in inferring 
that they were regarded by the prophet as non- 
existent; unless we adopt what seems to be Dr. 
Ives's principle of interpretation, that, when there 
is warrant for any departure from the strictly 
literal understanding of a passage, we may depart 
from it as far as we please. 

In Isa. xxvi. 14 it is said of the Rephaim that 
*' they shall not rise ; " while in ver. 19 it is said 



THE REPHAIM. 159 

that the dead bodies shall arise, and that "the 
earth shall cast out the Rephaim." The first pas- 
sage refers to the enemies of God's people ; the 
other, to God's people themselves. Clearly, if the 
Rephaim are something that can be conceived as 
cast out (literally, cause to fall ; i.e., bring to 
birth), they are not regarded as nonentities. 

In Job xxvi. 5 we read, " Dead things [Rephaim] 
are formed from under the waters, and the inhab- 
itants thereof." The word rendered " are formed " 
really means " are made to writhe " with pain. 
Job is answering Bildad, who had described God's 
power and majesty as extending upwards to the 
heavens ; and he says, " To whom hast thou ut- 
tered words? I know that God's dominion fills 
the heavens ; and more, too, may be said. It reach- 
es down into Sheol likewise, and the Rephaim are 
put into terror before him. Sheol is naked before 
him, and destruction hath no covering." Job's 
language, like Isaiah's, is poetic; but no decent 
exposition can obliterate the impression produced 
by such a passage, that the writer had in mind a 
dwelling-place of existent beings when he wrote 
of Sheol and of the Rephaim in it as filled with 
terror before the majesty of God. 

There remains only Ps. Ixxxviii. 10, which reads, 
" Shall the Rephaim arise and praise thee ? " In 
the context the thought is expanded, and the 
Rephaim are shown to be the same as the " dead " 
(ver. 10) ; as those who have been buried (ver. 11), 



160 OLD-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY. 

and are now in " destruction " (Hebrew, Abaddon^ 
a synonjme of Sheol: vide Job xxvi..6, xxviii. 22; 
Prov. XV. 11). 

Aside from the manner in which the Rephaim 
are described, as seen in the foregoing, there is sig- 
nificance in the very fact that a name of this sort 
should have been applied to the dead. The exact 
meaning of the name i§, indeed, a matter of dis- 
pute ; but it is certain that it is not derived from 
any word which suggests that non-existence was 
any part of the conception attached to the word. 
According to Gesenius, it comes from a root mean- 
ing " to be silent ; " according to Fiirst, from a 
root meaning " to be dark ; " according to Simonis, 
from a root meaning " to be weak." All scholars, 
however, agree that the word corresponds some- 
what to the Latin manes, the so-called " shades " 
of the departed. In any case it is safe to say, that, 
if the Hebrews had really regarded the dead as 
non-existent, they would not have invented any 
other name for them, unless the new name con- 
veyed that notion of non-existence. If the dead 
were deemed to be absolutely extinct, no attribute 
could have been imagined to belong to them ex- 
cept that of non-existence itself. 

7. It is in the light of the foregoing positive 
indications, in the Old Testament, of the continued 
existence of men after death, that we are to explain 
those passages which seem to affirm , that death 
puts an end to conscious existence. We do not 



PASSAGES FAVORING ANNIHILATIONISM. 161 

now refer to those in which merely the words 
" die " or " death " are used ; nor even to the many 
in which various terms, rendered " destroy," " con- 
sume," &c., are found: these we shall have occa- 
sion to consider when we come to discuss the bib- 
lical conception of life and death. We refer to 
those which seem to declare that at death the 
attiibute of self-conscious individuality comes to 
an end. Thus it is said (Ps. cxlvi. 4), " In that 
very day [the day of death] his thoughts perish." 
So Ps. Ixxxviii. 10, " Wilt thou show wonders to 
the dead? Shall the dead [Rephaim] arise and 
praise thee?" Similarly Isa. xxxviii. 18, 19, "For 
the grave [Sheol] cannot praise thee ; death cannot 
celebrate thee : they that go down to the pit can- 
not hope /or thy truth. The living, the living, he 
shall praise thee, as I do this day." This was said by 
Hezekiah, after recovering from the sickness which 
had threatened his life. So Ps. vi. 5, " For in death 
there is no remembrance of thee : in th«> grave [in 
Sheol] who shall give thee thanks?" Like sen- 
timents are expressed in Ps. xxx. 9, cxv. 17. 

In the book of Ecclesiastes also we find some 
passages of similar import. In ix. 5, 6, we read, 
" For the living know that they shall die : but the 
dead know not 'an}' thing, neither have they any 
more a reward ; for the memory of them is forgotten. 
Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy is 
now perished ; neither have they any more a portion 
forever in any thing that is done under the sun." 



162 OLD-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY. 

In ver. 10 it is said, " There is no work, nor 
device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave 
[in Sheol] whither thou goest." And in iii. 19 
it is said of men and beasts, " As the one dieth, so 
dieth the other ; yea, they have all one breath : so 
that a man hath no pre-eminence above a beast." 

These are the most positive and strong of the 
passages of the Old Testament Avhich seem to 
afi&rm the destruction of personality at death. 
"What shall be said about them ? 

It is obvious that the passages from Ecclesiastes 
are of a peculiar character. If we take them liter- 
ally and without abatement, they prove too much. 
The declaration that "a man hath no pre-eminence 
above a beast " is certainly not in accordance with 
the general drift of scriptural teaching : for, even 
if it should be said that this only means that death 
puts an end to human as well as bestial existence, 
still, according to the Bible in general, there is a 
future life for some men at least; so that, at the 
worst, death has a vastly different relation to man 
from what it has to the beast. Man has a pre-emi- 
nence above the beast ; he does not finally cease 
to exist at the death of the body ; and therefore it 
cannot be said in strict truth, that, " as one dieth, 
so dieth the other." Any one who attempts to 
take the language of the book of Ecclesiastes 
throughout as i|.ndiluted and sacred truth will 
certainly have to depart far from the literal inter- 
pretation, — so far as to make it say just what it 



THE EVIDENCE OF ECCLESIASTES 163 

does not say. Thus it is said in viii. 15, " A man 
hath no better thing under the sun than to eat, and 
to drink, and to be merry." In vi. 8 the Preacher 
asks, " What hath the wise more than the fool ? " 
The despondent, sceptical mood which pervades 
much of this book shows conclusively that it is 
descriptive of a process of mind through which 
the author had gone, rather than a formal state- 
ment of his mature judgment. In fact, he con- 
tradicts himself, if we assume that he everywhere 
is intending to state his present opinions. Hav- 
ing implied in iii. 19-21 that there is no differ- 
ence between men and brutes, he implies in xii. 
7 that there is a difference. Having implied in 
vi. 8 that the wise are no better off than the 
fools, he affirms in vii. 19 that wisdom is a valua- 
ble thing. While he declares in ix. 1-3 that the 
righteous and the wicked fare equally well, he 
affirms in viii. 12, 13, that the righteous shall in 
the long-run fare better than the wicked. While 
he says (ix. 5) of the dead that they " have no 
more any reward," he declares (xii. 14) that " God 
shall bring every work into judgment, with every 
secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be 
evil." In short, he is describing things as they 
seem to one who looks on life according to the 
outward appearance. Clearly, then, it will not do 
to take every verse in this book as literal truth. 

Nevertheless, the other passages above quoted 
also present, it may be said, a similar view of the 



164 OLD-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY. 

state of the dead. And in general, it may be 
argued, the Old Testament represents the state of 
the dead as any thing but a state of enlarged capar 
city and increased intelligence. As compared with 
this earthly life, it is described as a state of weak- 
ness (Isa. xiv. 10) : it is pictured as a slumberous, 
inactive state (Job iii. 13, 17, xiv. 12), from which 
one is rarely (Isa. xiv. 9) or reluctantly (1 Sam. 
xxviii. 15) aroused. It is called " a land of dark- 
ness and the shadow of death ; a land of darkness, 
as darkness itself " (Job x. 21, 22). It is a state 
which even the pious shrink from entering into 
(Isa. xxxviii. 11, 18 ; Ps. cii. 24). We must admit 
that this is the general tone of the Old Testament 
with reference to the condition ensuing after death. 
Now, these gloomy views of the state of the dead 
might naturally be expected to lead to as intense 
expressions as those which we have quoted. Yet 
all the passages from the Psalms (with one excep- 
tion), and Isa. xxxviii. 18, merely speak of Sheol 
as a place where the praises of God are not cele- 
brated ; they do not affirm the cessation of con- 
sciousness. They do imply that death introduces 
one into a state inferior to the present; but they 
do not assert or imply that it is a state of non- 
existence. As to the other passage (Ps. cxlvi. 4) 
in which it is said, " In that very day his thoughts 
perish," it should be noticed, in the first place, that 
the statement has reference to the futility of de- 
pending on men : " Put not your trust in princes, 



CONCLUSION. 165 

nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. 
His breath goeth forth : he return eth to his earth : 
in that- very day his thoughts perish." In the next 
place, it should be observed that the word ren- 
dered " thoughts " occurs in only this one passage, 
and properly means, not "thoughts," in the sense 
which that word bears with us, as equivalent to 
mental activity in general, but "devices," "plans," 
" purposes ; " so that the passage merely affirms 
that death puts an end to the schemes of men, 
because it puts them into a state where they can 
no longer be carried out, and therefore renders 
futile all dependence on human help. 

We thus see to how small a dimension these 
declarations are reduced, when regarded as affirm- 
ing or implying the total cessation of personal ex- 
istence. At the most, it would be hazardous to 
derive any dogma from two or three poetic expres- 
sions. But, even if there were more, it would be 
a reasonable explanation to say that death is often 
described according to appearance. It puts an end 
to all intercourse with the deceased : they have no 
more " a portion forever in any thing that is done 
under the sun " (Eccles. ix. 6). In fact, the 
strongest possible expression which the Hebrew 
language has for non-existence is employed with 
reference to Enoch (Gen. v. 24), when it is said 
that " he wa^ not." Yet it is immediately added 
that " God took him ; " from which it is manifest that 
the non-existence has reference only to Enoch's ap- 
pearance on earth amongst those living there. 



166 OLD-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY. 

When, however, in addition to these considera- 
tions, we find many unanswerable indications in 
the Old Testament of the fact that the writers did 
believe in a continuation of human existence after 
death, it is obvious that we are bound to interpret 
the few according to the many, the obscure accord- 
ing to the clear. Even one clear, unambiguous 
declaration that the human soul survives death is 
enough to overthrow a dozen passages which only 
apparently affirm the opposite ; for all nations often 
speak of death as the end of a man, as terminating 
a man's projects and hopes, as a perishing, &c. ; 
while, nevertheless, it is not meant that there is in 
death the literal termination of human existence. 
We can account for such forms of expression on 
the ground of the actual facts attending death ; 
but, on the supposition that the biblical writers 
did not believe in a future existence, we cannot ac- 
count for language which implies such a belief. This 
is a most weighty consideration. Let us illustrate 
it by a familiar example. We can account for 
men's speaking as if they regarded the sun as re- 
volving around the earth, while we know that they 
really think that the opposite is the truth; for 
certain appearances make such language natural : 
but, if we supposed that such language expressed 
men's real belief, then we could not account for 
language which implies that they regard the earth 
as revolving around the sun. 



NEW-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY. 167 



CHAPTER VIII. 

TBm NEW-TESTAMENT DOCTKINE CONCEENING 
THE STATE OF THE DEAD. 

IT is very noticeable and significant that the 
strong expressions adduced to prove the non- 
existence of the dead are all derived from the 
Old Testament. It is useless to deny the fact, 
that there is a difference between the two books 
in this respect. Not that the difference amounts 
to a contradiction. But the New Testament is 
the fulfilment of the Old. It makes clear what is 
there obscure. It brings life and immortality to 
light. The Old Testament is imperfect, as a reve- 
lation of divine truth : if not, what was the need 
of another? Any theory which rests on the Old 
Testament, to the comparative neglect of the New, 
must be erroneous. Yet this is what is done by 
the materialistic advocates of the doctrine of 
conditional immortality. 

What light, now, is shed on our theme by the 
New Testament ? 

1. We have already had occasion (Chap. VI.) to 
consider some passages which bear upon the point 



168 NEW-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY. 

now before us. Thus Phil. i. 23, "I am in a 
strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and 
to be with Christ," as we have seen, clearly im- 
plies ' that death brings, not annihilation, but 
fellowship with Christ. The same is implied in 
2 Cor. V. 1-3, and, indeed, in nearly all those 
passages which affirm the essential difference be- 
tween body and soul; particularly Matt. x. 28, 
" Fear not them which kill the body, but are not 
able to kill the soul." The narrative (or parable) 
of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke xvi. 19-31) 
is explicit and directly to the point. It is ex- 
pressly taught there, that after death, before the 
resurrection, while his brothers were yet alive on 
the earth, and while he himself was in Hades, the 
rich man was in torment. Equally explicit is the 
doctrine involved in Christ's language to the thief 
on the cross. It teaches that death is not the 
extinction of being. The narrative of the trans- 
figuration likewise implies the continued existence 
of the dead. To the same effect is the argument 
of our Lord with the -Sadducees. There is no 
escape from the conclusion that he means what he 
says when he declares respecting God that "he 
is not a God of the dead, but of the living; for 
all live unto him" (Luke xx. 38). The passages 
in Rev. vi. 9, Heb. xii. 1, 23, also point to the same 
conclusion. Besides these passages, already dis- 
cussed in Chap. VL, we may adduce also 2 Pet. 
ii. 9, where it is said, " The Lord knoweth how to 



PBOOFS OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE DEAD. 169 

deliver the godly . out of temptation, and to 
reserve [preserve] the unjust unto the day of 
judgment to be punished." The verb tcrein — 
here rendered " reserved " — is commonly rendered 
*' keep." It is the same word which occurs twice 
in .Tude 6 : " The angels which kept not their first 
estate ... he hath reserved in everlasting chains 
under darkness unto the judgment of the great 
day." It is impossible to understand such lan- 
guage unless the persons kept are in existence. 
But the case is still stronger than our version 
makes it ; for • the word rendered " to be pun- 
ished " is the present passive participle, and should 
be translated "being punished." That is, the 
unjust are undergoing punishment while they are 
kept unto the day of judgment. 

2. Observe, moreover, that, besides these positive 
testimonies, we have the important negative argu- 
ment, that the New Testament contains no state- 
ment which implies or asserts that death causes a 
cessation^ or even suspension^ of consciousness. 

3. Here we may remark upon the word " sleep," 
which is several times used with reference to the 
dead. Two Greek verbs are so translated. The 
one, katheudo^ is commonly used in the literal 
sense ; but once it denotes the state of death (1 
Thess. V. 10), and twice it is used to designate a 
state of spiritual sluggishness (Eph. v. 14 ; 1 Thess. 
V. G). It is also the word used by Christ with 
reference to the ruler's daughter, when he said, 



170 NEW-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY. 

*' The maid is not dead, but sleepeth " (Matt. ix. 
24; Mark V. 39). Here "dead" and "sleepeth" 
are antithetic to each other. If the first is to be 
understood literally, then the other is also. But 
if, as we are doubtless to assume, Christ only meant 
to say that the death was to be so short in the 
duration of its effects as not properly to deserve 
the name of death, then the " sleep *' also is to be 
understood according to the same figure of speech. 
It does not here denote literal sleep, but so brief 
a suspension, through death, of the ordinary func- 
tions of life, that it may be compared with one's 
daily sleep. These passages, then, are not to be 
reckoned among those in which " sleep " is a 
mode of designating " death." The terms are here, 
not synonj^mous, but antithetic. 

The other word translated " sleep " (not to 
mention the noun '•'• Jiypnos^^'' which is also used 
commonly in the literal sense, and never as a syno- 
nyme or euphemism for " death ") is koimaomai. 
This also sometimes denotes literal sleep ; as Matt, 
xxviii. 13, "His disciples . . . stole him away 
while we slept." So also Luke xxii. 45 ; John xi. 
12 (while in xi. 11 it is used respecting death, but, 
as an ambiguous term, not so understood) ; Acts 
xii. ,6. In the other instances of its use, thirteen 
in all, it has reference to the condition of the 
deceased. In one of these (1 Cor. vii. 39) our 
Bible translates it, "if her husband he dead."" 
The other cases are the following: Matt, xxvii. 



THE "SLEEP" OF DEATH. 171 

52 ; Acts vii. 60, xiii. 36 ; 1 Cor. xi. 30, xv. 6, 18, 
20, 51 ; 1 Thess. iv. 13-15 ; 2 Pet. iii. 4. 

What, now, is the significance of this mode 
of speech? Perhaps from such a figurative ex- 
pression no very positive inference can be drawn 
as to the question, whether the dead are in a 
state of conscious existence. But it certainly 
would seem difficult to infer from it that the dead 
are non-existent; and yet this is precisely what 
Dr. Ives does. Let us examine his argument. 

It must be remembered that Dr. Ives insists on 
the most "literal" interpretation possible. It is 
with some surprise, therefore, that we find him 
speaking after the following manner (p. 69) : 
"When the writer [Dr. Ives] was investigating 
the question of the sleep of the dead ; i.e., whether 
the dead are actually dead." Inasmuch as with 
him " death " means loss of existence, it follows 
that this means that the phrase " sleep," as applied 
to the dead, is an emphatic mode of affirming their 
non-existence. " Sleep " thus, if possible, is (ac- 
cording to our author) a stronger word for non- 
existence than "death" is. But what shall be 
said of Christ's declaration (Matt. ix. 24) con- 
cerning Jairus's daughter, " The maid is not dead, 
but sleepeth"? Does this mean, "The maid is 
not dead, but is actually dead " ? Dr. Ives, speak- 
ing of this passage (p. 186), thus paraphrases it : 
" Weep not : she is not dead, never to live again ; 
this is but a temporary loss of life ; it is indeed a 



172 NEW-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY. 

sleep, a brief period of unconsciousness." Ac- 
cording to this, then, sleep means " a temporary 
loss of life," "a brief period of unconsciousness;" 
while " death," in contradistinction from it, denotes 
a permanent loss of existence ; in other words, it 
is a weaker term than "death." We will not 
undertake to explain this inconsistency. The 
remarkable thing is, that in either case there is no 
intimation that " sleep " is used in 2, figurative sense. 
He simply identifies sleep with death, and death 
with non-existence ! But he further defines this 
sleep of death as a state of unconsciousness (e.g., 
p. 182). Now, it is obvious to remark that a state 
of unconsciousness is not, as such, a state of non- 
existence. On any theory of "literal" interpreta- 
tion, Dr. Ives's doctrine is overthrown by the New- 
Testament representation of the dead as being 
asleep, and even by his own of the dead as being 
unconscious. He relates the incident of a sus- 
pension of consciousness, caused by an accident to 
the President of Carleton College, as an illustra- 
tion of his theory (p. 278). But does he mean to 
affirm that the president was non-existent during 
that period? on the contrary, no one ever uses 
the term " unconscious " unless he is speaking 
of some existent person or thing of whom the un- 
consciousness is affirmed. 

But it is a very bold assumption to represent 
sleep as a state of total unconsciousness. Dr. Ives 
asks, "Is it not well known that sound sleep is 



IS SLEEP NON-EXISTENCE? 173 

dreamless ? " (p. 277.) We answer, that this is not 
well known: on the contrary, it is a more prob- 
able opinion, that in all sleep the mind is active 
(vide especially Hamilton's " Metaphysics," lecture 
xvii.). But even if it were true that in " sound " 
sleep there is entire unconsciousness, yet where do 
we learn that the sleep of the deceased is this 
peculiarly "sound" sleep? The Bible nowhere 
so defines it. 

Dr. Ives asks (p. 186), " What kind of sleep is 
that of modern theology, where the sleeper in 
death is wide-awake, and with his intellectual 
powers more active than ever ? " We admit, that, 
if this is the true representation of the mental 
state of the dead, the term " sleep " seems to be 
not an altogether appropriate term with which to 
describe their mental condition. But we may 
reply by asking, What kind of sleep is that in 
which the sleeper is not even an existent being ? 
A state of active consciousness is certainly much 
nearer the state of ordinary sleep than a state of 
total non-existence is. In fact, inasmuch as in 
sleep the mind is certainly often^ and probably 
always^ active, the doctrine of " modem theology," 
even assuming it to be what Dr. Ives represents it 
to be, is quite consistent with that of the New 
Testament. But Dr. Ives's doctrine is utterly 
opposed to it. For, we repeat, sleep is not non- 
existence. We do not go out of existence every 
night, and come back into it every morning. Of 



174 NEW-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY. 

all men, Dr. Ives should be the last to affirm this, 
since with him the organism is the man; and 
even a dreamless, sleeping organism is alive and 
existent. This New-Testament doctrine of the 
sleep of the dead, therefore, is the last one to be 
resorted to in proof of his doctrine. We might 
expect him to try to explain away the apparent 
implication of these passages ; but that he should 
quietly appeal to them as signal proof of the cor- 
rectness of his view, on the assumption that 
"sleep" means "actual death," and without the 
faintest hint that " sleep " is even used figuratively, 
— this is very strange. 

Just what is meant when the Bible calls death a 
sleep is a question which it is not now necessary 
to discuss at large. Taken in conjunction with 
those Old-Testament passages in which existence 
in Sheol is portrayed as a slumberous, inactive, or 
even unconscious state, they favor the impression 
that at the best the so-called intermediate state 
(between death and the resurrection) is inferior 
to the present one in many respects, and greatly 
inferior to the one ushered in by the resurrection. 
But, on the other hand, it may be (and more 
probably is) the case, that all these representations 
are suggested, in part, by the appearance of the 
dying and dead person, so closely resembling the 
ordinary process of going to sleep ; the fact being, 
that (as is intimated in the account of Lazarus 
and the rich man) the condition of a man after 



HADES. 175 

death is actually one of full consciousness, and is 
called sleep, as being a rest from the labors and 
hardships of this present life. Such is the import 
of Rev. xiv. 13, where the death of saints is so 
described, and where, moreover, the continued 
existence of the dead is distinctly implied. 

4. We will next consider what the New Testa- 
ment says about Hades. This word was derived 
from classic Greek, where it was commonly em- 
ployed to designate the abode of departed spirits. 
In the English version it is usually, but wrongly, 
translated " hell : " it certainly was not understood 
by the Greeks to be equivalent to the grave. In 
the Septuagint version of ^the Old Testament, this 
word was used as the equivalent of Sheol. And 
certainly no better word could have been found. 
The same word was also employed by the New- 
Testament writers in speaking of the state of the 
dead: it occurs, however, much less frequently 
than in the Old Testament; in all, only eleven 
times. We will examine all the cases. 

In Matt. xi. 23 and Luke x. 15 it is said of 
Capernaum, " Thou Capernaum, which art exalted 
unto heaven, shalt be brought down to Hades." 
Here Hades, as that which is low, is contrasted 
with heaven, as signifying that which is high. 
The language involves no definite statement con- 
cerning Hades as the abode of the dead, and may 
mean no more than Sheol does in such a passage 
as Deut. xxxii. 22, "A fire is kindled in mine 



176 NEW-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY. 

anger, and shall burn unto the lowest Sheol." In 
Matt. xvi. 18 we read, "Upon this rock I will 
build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not 
prevail against it." Here, too, nothing is defi- 
nitely taught concerning Hades as the dwelling- 
place of departed spirits. Hades is spoken of as a 
power, yet under the figure of a palace or strong- 
hold, the strength of which is implied by refer- 
ence to its gates ; though such a reference would 
be rhetorically more natural and appropriate if 
Hades were represented as the attacked, rather 
than the attacking, party. Similarly is Hades 
used in 1 Cor. xv. b5: " O Death, where is thy 
sting? O Hades, where is thy victory?" Here 
Hades is personified, and associated with Death, 
as is done in Hos. xiii. 14 ; from which passage 
Paul's language is borrowed. Nothing distinct 
is here taught concerning the meaning of Hades ; 
the less, as the more approved reading substitutes 
"Death" for " Hades " in this verse. The same 
may be said of the four passages in Revelation in 
which Hades is mentioned. In i. 18 we read, " I 
am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I 
am alive forevermore. Amen; and have the keys 
of Hades and of Death." In vi. 8 it is said, " And 
I looked, and behold a pale horse ; and his name 
that sat on him was Death ; and Hades followed 
with him." The other two passages are xx. 13, 
14, where it is said, " Death and Hades delivered 
up the dead which were in them," and "Death 



HADES. 177 

and Hades were cast into the lake of fire." The 
first of these seems to imply that Hades contained 
the dead, and therefore it entirely coincides with 
the Old-Testament description of Sheol. The 
other is figurative in form, and adds nothing to 
our knowledge on the question now before us. 

The passage Luke xvi. 23, however, is unequiv- 
ocal in its teaching that the rich man there men- 
tioned went after death into Hades: "And in 
Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torments." 
We do not need to repeat what we have already 
said in defence of this proposition. The passages 
above referred to contain nothing inconsistent 
with the doctrine that Hades is the abode of the 
spirits of the deceased. They rather all imply it, 
though the language used is somewhat figurative 
and vague. Looked at in the light of Luke xvi. 
23, and of the uniform language of the Old Tes- 
tament respecting Sheol, they are all to be under- 
stood as implying that Hades is a real place or 
state of real beings. 

There remain only the two passages. Acts ii. 27, 
31, those in which reference is made to Ps. xvi. 10, 
"Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades," &c. 
This is here applied to Christ. First, however, we 
must observe that the Greek is mistranslated, just 
as the Hebrew is in the Old Testament. The 
preposition is not en (" in "), but eis (" unto ") ; 
and the passage really reads, " Thou wilt not 
leave [abandon] my soul unto Hades." In other 



178 NEW-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY. 

words, it is said that Christ was not given over to 
Hades, — was not abandoned to its power. We 
are aware that many commentators find in this 
passage a proof of the doctrine of Christ's descent 
into Hades. But the passage, strictly interpreted, 
teaches just the opposite. Nor is there any other 
passage which does teach this doctrine. Reference 
is generally made to Eph. iv. 9, " Now that he as- 
cended, what is it but that he also descended first 
into the lower parts of the earth ? " It is true 
that this may mean that he descended into Hades ; 
for Sheol is in the Old Testament often spoken of 
as in the lower parts of the earth. But, on the 
other hand, the passage in question may mean 
only "that Christ first descended to the earth, — 
this descent, undertaken in order to become incar- 
nate and work out man's redemption, being the 
necessary condition of his ascending to heaven as 
the Head of the Church and the dispenser of spir- 
itual blessings. Such a representation is much the 
most consonant with the drift of the context and 
with the general tone of Paul's doctrine. If we 
found that in the New Testament any prominence 
were given to the doctrine of Christ's descent into 
Hades, this passage might fairly be understood to 
refer to it; but, there being absolutely no other 
unambiguous affirmation of any such doctrine, it 
is unreasonable to insist that this passage must 
refer to it. Nor can the doctrine be proved 
from 1 Pet. iii. 19, — a passage into the discussion 



HADES. 179 

of which we do not care to enter, since at the best 
it is extremely obscure, and its elucidation is not 
essential to our main object. 

It appears, therefore, that the New Testament 
has very little to say about Hades, and that it no- 
where unequivocally teaches that all men descend 
into it. It may be inferred from Rev. xx. 13, 
where Death and Hades are 'described as giving up 
the dead that are in them ; that all the dead are in 
Hades : but the passage does not say this. Luke 
xvi. 23, the most important passage bearing on 
our question, teaches that bad men go to Hades ; 
but that the good go there cannot be inferred from 
it, especially as Lazarus is not spoken of as being 
in Hades, while the rich man is so spoken of. This 
contrast goes far to favor the doctrine, that, accord- 
ing to Christ, the good do not go to Hades. His 
promise to the thief, moreover, refers to Paradise^ 
not to Hades. And in general, wherever in the 
New Testament Hades is mentioned, it is as being 
an unattractive place, associated with the enemies, 
not the friends, of the kingdom of Christ ; and, 
when it is last mentioned, it is as being cast into 
the lake of fire. 

Though less frequently mentioned than Sheol, 
Hades is described in much the same way. In the 
Old Testament Sheol is sometimes spoken of as 
the destined abode of all men, but especially as 
the abode of had men ; while sometimes the good 
are represented as escaping from it altogether. 



180 NEW-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY. 

The truth seems to be this : Hades was, in general, 
conceived of by the Jews as the abode of the 
dead. But the predominant associations with the 
place (or state) were gloomy. The good longed 
for an assurance of exemption from this subterra- 
neous and cheerless receptacle. Some of them 
gained that assurance. In the New Testament 
this assurance becamd confirmed, and the name 
Hades (Sheol) became still more closely associated 
with the wicked. The doctrine of hell (jgehennd) 
also was unfolded : a distinction was made between 
the temporary and the ultimate abode of the lost. 

As to the main question before us, the teaching 
of the New Testament concerning Hades is clear 
enough. If the had go to Hades after death, and 
are not annihilated, but rather suffer torment, it 
certainly can hardly be supposed that the good are 
annihilated. Whether the place to which they go 
is called Hades, or not, may be a question ; but it 
is not a question, whether they continue in exist- 
ence. 

It has been our purpose in this chapter to sketch 
the New-Testament doctrine of the state into 
which men enter immediately after death. This 
so-called intermediate state is not minutely de- 
scribed. But the general purport of the few in- 
timations given to us is to the effect that the be- 
liever enters at once into a state of happiness and 
of conscious fellowship with Christ (Luke xvi. 22, 
xxiii. 43 ; Phil. i. 23), and that the wicked enter 



ACTS II. 34, 181 

into a state of unhappiness (Luke xvi. 23). The 
greater part of the New-Testament passages re- 
specting the future state have reference, however, 
to the final state, — to the state which follows the 
resurrection and the judgment. That the good 
continue to exist forever after this is generally 
admitted by all believers in the Bible. Whether 
the wicked also exist forever is a question which 
we shall have occasion to consider at a later point. 
Thus far we have aimed to show, that, according to 
the Bible, the soul is not extinguished at the death 
of the body. In this view we are supported by a 
large portion of those who believe that the souls 
of the wicked are ultimately annihilated. This 
fact is a weighty confirmation of the conclusion 
we have reached concerning the biblical doctrine. 
5. Before proceeding to our next topic, we will 
notice two passages which have been quoted as 
conflicting with the views which we have advocated. 
Acts ii. 34 is several times adduced by Dr. Ives as 
a striking proof of his doctrine (pp. 49, 99, 192, 
247, 321). We are there told, he says, "that even 
David, that man after God's heart, has not as- 
cended into the heavens " (p. 192). On p. 99 he 
quotes Acts ii. 29 and ii. 84 consecutively, as if 
they were directly and logically connected, as fol- 
lows: "Men and brethren, let me freely speak 
unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both 
dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto 
this day. For David is not ascended into the 



182 NEW-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY. 

heavens." This almost equals the combination, 
•' Judas went and hanged himself. Go thou, and 
do likewise " ! Ver. 34 is immediately connected 
with the preceding verse. There Peter says, 
" Therefore [Jesus], being by the right hand of 
God exalted, and having received of the Father 
the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth 
this which ye now see and hear." Then follows, 
^'-For David did not ascend [as the aorist should 
be rendered] into the heavens ; but he saith him- 
self. The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my 
right hand," &c. Thus we see that Peter, instead 
of connecting the statement about David's not 
ascending into the heavens with his quotation from 
Ps. xvi. 8-11 which he had made in vers. 25-28, 
connects it with a quotation from Ps. ex. 1. And 
he simply says that the declaration in Ps. ex. 1, 
" Sit thou on my right hand," refers to Christ, not 
to David: "/or David did not ascend into the 
heavens ; " he was still on earth when he said this. 
The passage says absolutely nothing about the 
question whether David is now in the heavens, or 
not. 

Another passage on which Dr. Ives lays great 
stress is 1 Cor. xv. 17, 18 : " If Christ be not raised, 
your faith is vain ; ye are yet in your sins. Then 
they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are 
perished." Of this we are told (p. 71), " There is 
but one way of understanding it : if there be no 
resurrection, there is no hereafter to those who 



1 COR. XV. 17, 18. 183 

die. In that case, death, the loss of life, is a final- 
ity." The reply to this is easy. The point of 
Paul's reasoning is this : The resurrection of Christ 
is the decisive proof of the reality of Christ's aton- 
ing work. " If Christ be not risen, then is our 
preacliing vain, and your faith is vain. Yea, and 
we are found false witnesses of God ; because we 
have testified of God that he raised up Christ; 
whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise 
not " (xv. 14, 15). But what is the relation of 
this to the living ? Does Paul say, that if Christ 
be not raised, then no one now living will after 
death be raised ? No : he says, " If Christ be not 
raised, your faith is vain ; ye are yet in your sins.'^^ 
In other words, " Unless Christ is risen from the 
dead, he cannot have been the Saviour he gave 
himself out to be. He is not what we have pro- 
claimed him to be. There is no forgiveness of 
sins through him. Ye are yet in your sins'' This 
shows conclusively what is meant when he goes on 
to say, " Theii they also which are fallen asleep in 
Christ are perished." According to Dr. Ives, all 
dead men are perished anyway, in the sense of 
being extinct. But it is obvious that what Paul 
means by perishing is explained by the previous 
remark about what would be the condition of the 
living in case there were no resurrection. In short, 
Paul has in mind the ethical, not the physical, rela- 
tion of Christ to men. " If there can be no resur- 
rection," he says, " then there has been none ; and, 



184 NEW-TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY. 

if there has been none, then all our preaching about 
the forgiveness of sins through a risen Christ has 
been delusive. The living are yet in their sins: 
and the dead likewise, having never been forgiven 
before death, have no hope of forgiveness; they 
are perished." 

It is a fundamental principle with our author, 
that without the resurrection there is no future 
existence. He calls this a doctrine of the Bible. 
But the Bible nowhere lays down any such propo- 
sition, and nowhere necessarily implies it. We 
have shown satisfactorily, we trust, that it teaches 
the opposite. It is appropriate, however, at this 
stage, to take up the topic of the resurrection. 



WHAT IS RAISED AT THE RESURRECTION? 185 



CHAPTER IX. 

THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. 

ALL agree that the Bible teaches the doctrine 
of a resurrection of the dead. But various 
questions are raised concerning the resurrection, 
on which wide differences of opinion prevail. We 
will, as briefly as we can, consider some of the 
principal of these questions. 

1. What is raised at the resurrection? 

There are those who answer this question by 
saying that the thing raised is the soul, or spirit, 
only; in other words, that the doctrine of the 
resurrection is merely the doctrine of a future 
existence. In favor of this may be urged that the 
phrase "resurrection," or "resurrection from the 
dead," contains no assertion respecting a bodily 
resurrection : it meets the requirement of this lan- 
guage to suppose that the soul alone is raised ; i.e., 
continued in existence. The argument of Christ 
with the Sadducees, it may be said, seems to prove 
no more than the continued existence of the 
dead : hence it is reasonable to suppose that noth- 
ing more was meant. The phrase "resurrection 



186 THE RESURRECTION OP THE DEAD. 

of the body," moreover, nowhere occurs in the 
Bible. 

But we need not dwell long on this answer. If 
we turn to 1 Cor. xv., where we have the fullest 
exposition of the doctrine, it becomes manifest 
that the resurrection, in Paul's conception of it, 
involves the raising of a body. It is inconceivable 
that the mere affirmation of a future existence of 
the soul could have occasioned any scandal or 
serious question in the minds of those Corinthians. 
Moreover, the objectors are represented as asking 
(xv. 35), " With what [kind of a] body do they 
come?" And Paul does not answer, as on this 
theory he ought to answer, that they come with 
no body at all ; but goes on to affirm that men rise 
with bodies, though with incorruptible and spirit- 
ual ones. It is equally inconceivable that the 
Athenians (Acts xvii. 32) should have been espe- 
cially offended by this doctrine, if it meant no 
more than what they were already familiar with. 
Moreover, Paul says, in Phil. iii. 21, that Christ 
will "change our vile hody^ that it may be fash- 
ioned like unto his glorious body ; " and, in Rom. 
viii. 11, that God will quicken (make alive) our 
" mortal bodies." To this we may add all those 
numerous passages (e.g., 1 Cor. vi. 14 ; Rom. vi. 5 ; 
Acts xxvi. 23) in which the resurrection of Chris- 
tians is described as analogous to that of Christ; 
but in his case there was most certainly a resurrec- 
tion of the body. 



THE BURIED BODY NOT RAISED. 187 

Another answer to our question is the extreme 
opposite of the foregoing. It is, that the thing 
raised is the exact body that was buried ; or, if 
not that, then the body as it had been at some 
pre^dous time ; or, if not that, the same particles 
as the buried body, though differently organized. 
This is the crass, coarse, mechanical theory, repug- 
nant alike to the intimations of Scripture, of nat- 
ural science, and of refined feeling. It is sufficient 
to say, that in 1 Cor. xv., where, if anywhere, we 
may expect to find some light on this question, 
emphasis is everywhere laid, not on the sameness, 
but on the difference, of the earthly and the heav- 
enly body : " That which thou sowest, thou sow- 
est not that body that shall be. . . . But God 
giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to 
every seed his own body " (vers. 37, 38). A cer- 
tain relation, like that of the seed to the plant 
growing from it, is indeed said to exist between 
the two bodies ; but no identity of form, or chem- 
ical substance, or weight, or appearance, is either 
asserted or implied. The only identity is the iden- 
tity of the person to whom the two bodies belong. 
The two bodies are alike in that they serve as the 
vehicle and minister of the same spirit. When, 
therefore, we ask what is raised, the biblical an- 
swer is easily given : The thing raised is the person. 
Ordinarily, the subject of the verb is a personal 
pronoun. Thus Mark xii. 25, "When they shall 
rise from the dead." Luke xvi. 31, " Neither will 



188 THE RESUBRECTION OF THE DEAD. 

they be persuaded though one rose from the dead." 
John XX. 9, " They knew not the scripture, that 
he must rise again from the dead." Acts x. 41, 
"After, he rose from the dead." Acts xvii. 31, 
" He hath raised him from the dead." 

When it is said that the dead are raised, nothing 
more is said than that those who have died will be 
raised ; unless, indeed, we assume that by " dead " 
is meant " dead bodies." The latter might be re- 
garded as favored by Phil. iii. 21, Rom. viii. 11 
(above quoted), and by the narrative in Matt, 
xxvii. 52, where it is said, that, after the resurrec- 
tion of Christ, " many bodies of the saints which 
slept arose ; " also by John v. 28, 29, " All that are 
in their graves shall hear his voice, and shall come 
forth." Nothing but dead bodies is in the grave. 
Hence it would seem, that, according to this, the 
dead bodies, and nothing else, are the things raised 
at the resurrection. Indeed, Dr. Ives quotes the 
latter passage very frequently (pp. 42, 59, 97, 157) 
as a description of the resurrection, and as defining 
clearly the place where the dead are ; but, on his 
own theory, we cannot see how he can be so fond 
of this passage. According to him, the dead are 
non-existent : they are, therefore, nowhere. They 
are no more in the grave than they are in the air. 
And at any rate, since he holds that the new body 
is in no sense the same as the old, he cannot hold 
that it in any sense " comes forth " out of the 
grave. But, on any theory of the future life, it 



THE KESURRECTION IS OF THE PERSON, 189 

would be unwarrantable to infer from these few 
passages alone that the buried body is the same as 
the resurrection-body. It is common to say of a 
man that he is in the grave, though it is not meant 
that the real person is there. In fact, no one holds 
that such a remark is strictly correct. Yet, since 
this is a common form of speech, it is perfectly 
natural, in speaking of the resurrection, to repre- 
sent men as coming out of the graves. 

We come back, then, to our question. What is 
raised at the resurrection? According to the 
Bible, it is the person who died ; and at the resur- 
rection this person is to be invested with a spirit- 
ual body, which has a certain relation to . the first 
body, though not at all identical with it : so that 
sometimes, though rarely, the resurrection is spo- 
ken of m if it were a resurrection of the buried 
body itself. 

At this point we may notice the answer which 
Dr. Ives gives to our question. One might have 
anticipated that he would hold to the most literal 
raising of the buried body, since, according to him, 
there is no personal existence apart from the body ; 
but he earnestly denounces this theory as unscrip- 
tural. He vehemently combats the doctrine of 
the Westminster Confession, that "the selfsame 
bodies " shall be raised (p. 121). 'fhe body is to 
be " an entirely different, a wonderfully changed, 
body " (/iic?.). " The grosser elements of our 
present earthy body are replaced by others more 



190 THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. 

subtile, more highly vitalized " (p, 117). So, then, 
the body that decays is not raised to a new life. 
What, then, is to be raised ? Of course it is not the 
soul, as an immaterial substance existing after the 
death of the body, and distinct from it ; for there 
is no such soul, in Dr. Ives's opinion. What can 
it be, then ? He tells us : " The resurrection is of 
the organism" (p. 121). But what is an organ- 
ism? He adopts the definition, "A structure 
composed of, or acting by means of, organs, — an 
organized being." And he adds, " The word ex- 
presses the idea of the orderly arrangement and 
association of organs in one structure, with differ- 
ing functions, and yet mutually dependent upon 
each other " (p. 106). When, now, the organism 
is raised, are the organs raised of which it was 
composed ? Impossible ; for then we should have 
" the selfsame body." We must, therefore, have the 
organism without the organs ! We must have " the 
orderly arrangement and association " without the 
things that were arranged and associated! If 
this means any thing, it must mean, at least, that 
the new organs — "the more subtile elements" 
which are to replace the original ones — are to be 
arranged and associated in precisely and identically 
the same way as the original ones ; for, the organs 
being " entirely different," there is nothing left for 
the identity to consist in but the arrangement of 
them. If we could assume that there is a soul 
distinct from the organism, we should have no 



DR. IVES ON THE RESURRECTIOK 191 

trouble ; for then the identity would inhere in this 
soul. But Dr. Ives will not tolerate such an as- 
sumption. Every thing, therefore, so far as we can 
see, must depend on the absolute identity in the 
arrangement of the two sets of organs. We can 
think of no other conception of the case which 
leaves any sense in the theory ; and, even at the 
best, it seems to us simply absurd. If it is tena- 
ble and true, then it would also be true, that, if a 
machine is replaced by another consisting of simi- 
lar parts related to one another in the same way, 
the second machine is identically the same as the 
first. Indeed, it is not at all necessary that the 
several parts should be of the same size or mate- 
rial. The second may be of gold, while the first 
was of iron; yet, provided the arrangement and 
association of the parts is the same, the two are 
still identical. In fact, the one does not need to 
succeed the other. There is no reason why we 
cannot have two machines, side by side, differing 
entirely in material, yet identically the same. 

But this is only the beginning of difficulties. 
We read on p. 119, where the author is speaking of 
Christ's resurrection-body, " We observe he speaks 
of himself as possessing flesh and bones (Luke 
xxiv. 39) ; but Paul says, ' Flesh and blood [note, 
he does not say * flesh or blood'] cannot inherit 
the kingdom of God,' which is to come when 
* this mortal puts on immortality.' " We are 
therefore to understand, that, while the " spirit- 



192 THE RESUERECTION OF THE DEAD. 

body " may consist of flesh and hones, it cannot 
consist of flesh and blood: consequently, blood, 
at any rate, will be wanting in the organism that 
is to be raised. Dr. Ives asks, "What, in our 
Lord's spirit-body, took the place of the circulating 
fluid, of earthy, mortal blood?" And he wisely 
answers, "We are not told. Probably we could 
not now understand it" (pp. 119, 120). But, 
while ordinary men Inight be satisfied with this 
answer. Dr. Ives has no right to be ; for he has 
found out, without being " told," that the arrange- 
ment and association of the new organs is to be 
precisely the same as in the old ; and it is an es- 
sential feature of these present organisms of ours 
that their very life and activity depend upon this 
" circulating fluid," the blood. In fact, the Old 
Testament repeatedly says that the soul consists 
in the blood (Lev. xvii. 11, 14 ; Gen. ix. 4 ; Deut. 
xii. 23). As between the blood on the -one hand, 
and the flesh and bones on the other, it would 
therefore, according to the Bible, seem absolutely 
necessary to regard the blood as the most essential 
in the soul that is raised. In any case, according 
to Dr. Ives, the organs of the immortal body are 
" entirely different " from the present^ They are 
"more subtile " than these, and "replace" these. 
At the best, then, it is by a sort of accommodation 
that we give them the same name. The flesh is 
to be entirely different from our mortal flesh ; the 
bones are to be entirely different from our mortal 



DR. IVES ON THE RESURRECTION. 193 

b6nes: yet they are still to be called flesh and 
bones. Why, then, should we not give the name of 
blood to that which "takes the place of" blood? 
If it is to take the place of the blood, then it sus- 
tains the same relation to the blood which the other 
organs of the spiritual body do to the other organs 
of the present body ; for those, Dr. Ives says, are 
to "replace " these. Why, then, not call it blood? 
We have, therefore, this dilemma: In the resur- 
rection-body either our blood is to be " replaced " 
by something which answers the same ends, or it 
is not to be thus replaced. If it is to be, then that 
something ought to be called blood, as much as the 
entirely different organs which replace the flesh 
and bones of our present bodies deserve to be 
called flesh and bones. If, however, our blood, is 
not to be thus replaced, then the " spirit-body " is 
to be destitute of an essential feature of the organ- 
ism of the mortal body ; and consequently it can- 
not be the same organism. Which horn will our 
author take ? 

We dwell on this point the more because it 
illustrates Dr. Ives's much-vaunted "biblical" 
mode of educing doctrines. According to the 
same method, one might gather from Matt. xvi. 
17 — "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona; for flesh 
and blood hath not revealed it unto thee " — that 
either flesh or blood had revealed it to him. Or 
when Paul says (Gal. i. 16), " I conferred not with 
flesh and blood," we may suppose that he did con- 



194 THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. 

fer with one or the other ; and when he ssijs (Eph 
vi. 12), " We wrestle not against flesh and blood," 
it is legitimate to assume that the contest is, after 
all, with one of them. To be sure, it may be diffi- 
cult to determine which of the two the negation be- 
longs to ; but Dr. Ives, no doubt, has some " bibli- 
cal " way of finding out. But ordinary men will 
certainly always understand Paul, in 1 Cor. xv. 50, 
to mean that neither flesh nor blood can inherit the 
kingdom of God ; for he has just said (ver. 49), " As 
we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall 
also bear the image of the heavenly ; " and surely 
both flesh and blood are earthy. 

But there are still other mysteries in Dr. Ives's 
theory of the resurrection. Apparently feeling 
that an identity of organism, or of life, is some- 
thing too coarse, if not too unintelligible, to meet 
the notions of those who look upon personality as 
consisting rather in the character resulting from a 
life-long exercise of thoughts and feelings, he at- 
tempts still another statement. Speaking of death 
as a " ceasing to exist," he adds, " Yet it is but 
for a time. The Infinite Creator keeps that soul 
in reiiiembrance, and in the 'appointed time,' at 
the resurrection, he restores it again, — restores 
the man himself, with his own character, his old 
emotions, habits of thought and purpose, and his 
memory ; in fact, the same individual as before " 
(p. 117). It is not entirely clear whether this 
means that "the man himself" is the same thing 



DR. lYES ON THE RESURRECTION. 195 

as the " character, emotions," &c. ; but apparently 
it does not. It is the man " with " these things 
that is to be restored. At the same time, how- 
ever, it is evidently designed to make the impres- 
sion that the restoration of the old character, 
thoughts, &c., is important, in order to make the 
man ''the same individual as before." At any 
rate, there seems to be something restored besides 
the " organism " or the " life." But we find it 
impossible to understand this on Dr. Ives's theory 
of the human soul; for he has told us that it is "a 
"particular organization of matter in a body." 
In fact, he has a great contempt for the philosophy 
which assumes the existence of an immaterial sub- 
stance. He says of those who denounce his views 
as materialistic that they hold " that man himself, 
the real man, is formed of — no matter, of noth- 
ing." In the place of matter, he says, " they seem 
trying to substitute something, or, more exactly, a 
literal nothing, — at least, that which is utterly 
unrecognizable by the senses God has given us ; 
of which, therefore, we can have no possible 
knowledge, save through revelation, and of which 
revelation says nothing " (pp. 273, 274). Plainly, 
then, according to this, thought, feeling, character, 
memory, are nothing but certain operations or con- 
ditions of the material organism. When that 
organism is destroyed, these mental operations or 
states are extinct too. It would be no less abslird, 
on this theory, to talk of preserving the barking of a 



196 THE RESUKRECTION OF THE DEAD. 

dog when the dead dog is buried, than to talk 
of preserving a man's character after the man 
is buried; and yet we are asked to believe that 
this extinct attribute of an extinct organism is to 
be "restored," -and attached to a new set of 
organs ! The old organism is entirely done with ; 
but the "habits" of those organs are to be re-cre- 
ated, and infused into " entirely different " ones ! 
No : our author must be held rigidly to his own 
chosen doctrine. He must not at one time seek to 
cast contempt on the notion of immateriality, and 
then virtually avail himself of that notion in his 
description of the resurrection. The " habits " of 
an organism, as distinct from the organism, if they 
are any thing, must be something immaterial ; for 
they certainly cannot be recognized by any of 
" the senses God has given us." Nor can he evade 
this conclusion by saying that the organism itself 
is also restored ; for, as even a child must see, an 
organism with " entirely different " organs must be 
a different organism. No : we must speak plainly. 
To say that moral and mental character, as distinct 
from that in which it inheres, can be thus "re- 
stored" and attached to a new body, is, on any 
theory, inconceivable. On Dr. Ives's theory, it is 
rank nonsense; for, according to that theory, 
the human "soul," the organism, after death, is 
destroyed, is non-existent. To speak of "restor- 
ing" it is itself an abuse of language. It is not 
restoration : it is an absolute creation. And to say 



DE. IVES ON THE RESURRECTION. 197 

that " character," " habits," are created, is like say- 
iug that Adam was forty years old the very second 
he was created. Habits are the results of growth : 
they require time for their formation. If abso- 
lutely put out of existence, they must require 
more time again for a second formation. And 
even then we cannot call the result the " same in- 
dividual ; " for, developed under different condi- 
tions, the resultant person must be himself, and 
not the same somebody that was put out of exist- 
ence centuries before. 

Nothing can be clearer than that our author has 
here involved himself in an inextricable self-con- 
tradiction. Wherein consists the identity of a man 
who is raised from the dead with the one who 
died? According to Dr. Ives, it cannot consist in 
the organism; for the organs are, in his view, 
" entirely different " from those of this life : yet 
he over and over insists that the organism is the 
man. Incidentally he speaks of the restoration 
of the same character, memory, habits of thought, 
&c., as though this were only a part, at most, of 
that in which the identity consists. But, since the 
organism is " entirely different," the identity, if 
there is any, must consist wholly in the " habits," 
&c. ; but, in this case, the habits, &c., must consti- 
tute the man. They are something which, accord- 
ing to Dr. Ives, is separable from the original 
organism, and is transferred to an entirely new 
organism. Here, then, we find our author virtu- 



198 THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. 

ally resorting to the ordinary doctrine of the soul. 
He implies a theory respecting " habits of thought, 
memory, character," &c., which makes them iden- 
tical with the popular conception of -the soul as 
something distinct from the body. 

We hardly need to remark that this doctrine of 
the resurrection is Dr. Ives's, not that of the Bible. 
The Bible gives us, it is true, no theory of the 
resurrection ; it does not go into particulars as to 
the mode of it : but it certainly lays no founda- 
tion for such a series of absurd conceptions as are 
involved in Dr. Ives's description of the resurrec- 
tion. Where does the Bible say that the organ- 
ism is raised ? or even that the soul, in Dr. Ives's 
sense of that word, is raised? Where does it 
speak of life being " restored " to a non-existent 
maii ? This whole notion is utterly without war- 
rant in the Bible. Even though the biblical 
writers, in a few cases, do represent the resurrec- 
tion as a making alive, they certainly do not fall 
into the self-contradiction implied in the concep- 
tion of " restoring " life to a man while yet there 
is no man to restore it to ! 

Dr. Ives says much about the resurrection ; but 
the idea of raising he makes little of. The Bible 
says that we shall be raised. It implies that there 
is something to raise. Dr. Ives holds that there is 
nothing left in existence that can be raised ; cer- 
tainly nothing that is raised. With him resurrec- 
tion is an outright creation of a new being, unless 



AftE ALL MEN RAISED? 199 

the " life " which is " restored " is the element of 
identity : but, if it is, then the man never really 
ceased to exist ; and Dr. Ives's whole doctrine of 
death, as being the total termination of man's 
existence, is overthrown.^ 

2. Another question relating to the resurrec- 
tion, on which opinions differ, is this: Are all 
men raised ? The affirmative of this seems to be 
established, especially by two passages. In John 
V. 28, 29, Christ says, "The hour is coming in 
the which all that are in the graves shall hear his 
voice, and shall come forth ; they that have done 
good, unto the resurrection of life ; and they that 
have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation 
[judgment]." Equally explicit is Paul in Acts 
xxiv. 15, where he says he has "hope toward 
God . . . that there shall be a resurrection of the 
dead, both of the just and unjust." These' are 
the most unequivocal affirmations of the resurrec- 
tion of the wicked ; but they are sufficient, espe- 
cially as they are not contradicted by other 

1 We have avoided making appeal to merely metaphysical or 
psychological arguments in our discussions; but Dr. Ives's theory 
of the resurrection almost forces us to resort to them. According 
to him, the resurrection must be a new creation of the same per- 
son (or organism) which had been previously put out of exist- 
ence; but it is sufficient to reply to this, that such a thing is, to 
our conception, an impossibility and an absurdity. If this uni- 
verse were absolutely annihilated, and then a new one just like it 
should be created, tlie now one would still be a new one, — not the 
same as the one annihilated. Sameness is not likeness. The 
identity is irreparaldy destroyed by the annihilation. 



200 THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAt). 

passages. We have, besides, such general state- 
ments as Mark xii. 26, "As touching the dead, 
that they rise ; " and 1 Cor. xv. 22, " As in Adam 
all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." 
But inasmuch as in the New Testament generally, 
and in this latter chapter particularly, the resur- 
rection is spoken of as the privilege of Christian 
believers, these general statements might easily 
be interpreted as relating to Christians alone, were 
it not for those others in which the wicked also 
are explicitly said to share in the resurrection. 
In addition to the two passages above quoted 
may be cited Rev. xx. 4, 5, 12-15, where the res- 
urrection is described as general, including those 
whose names are found in the book of life, and 
those who were cast into the lake of fire. 

It is true that the wicked are nowhere explicitly 
saidto have new bodies at the resurrection; and 
there are those, who, while they accept the doctrine 
that all men are raised, yet hold that only the 
saints are raised with glorified bodies. But it is 
manifest that ordinaril}^, when the resurrection of 
believers is spoken of, reference is made to the 
resurrection of the body. 1 Cor. xv. shows that 
the general term "resurrection," or "resurrection 
of the dead," was commonly understood to imply 
resurrection with a body. The presumption is, 
that, when the same general term is applied to the 
wicked, the same implication as to tiie body is con- 
veyed. Of course, in so far as the possession of 



THE RESURRECTION UNIVERSAL. 201 

the spiritual body was an object of longing (Phil, 
iii. 11), there must have been thought to be some- 
thing in the experience of the risen saint far 
different from that of the risen unbeliever. The 
very fact that Paul thus expresses a longing that 
he "might attain unto the resurrection of the 
dead " — the same thing apparently which he held 
that all men would certainly attain to — shows 
that he had reference to something more than the 
mere resurrection, the mere acquisition of the 
spiritual body. He longed for that fellowship 
with Christ of which the resurrection was to be 
the consummation. 

The fact, that, according to the Scriptures, the 
wicked as well as the good are to be raised from 
the dead, is significant in connection with the 
general question relative to the future fate of 
men. According to the materialistic conception 
of the matter, the wicked, at death, pass utterly 
out of existence ; then, after an indefinitely long 
interval, are re-invested with bodies ; and then, 
immediately afterwards, are again put out of ex- 
istence. This doctrine is not only, metaphysi- 
cally considered, incredible and absurd, not only 
contrary to the teaching of the Bible, but is also 
intensely repugnant to all sound sense and moral 
instincts. According to the materialistic Chris- 
tians, death, understood to mean extermination 
of being, is the penalty of ungodliness. They 
hold, moreover, that the death of the body is com- 



202 THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. 

plete. extermination; but, in addition to this, 
there is to be a second extermination, preceded 
and. caused by fire, through which the spiritual 
body is to be burned up (yid. Dr. Ives's " Bible 
Doctrine," chap. xi.). If the thing deserved and 
needed as the penalty of sin be extermination^ 
then it has already been secured, on this theory, 
by the first death. Why should the sinner be 
brought again into existence, and made to undergo 
the penalt}^ a second time? But if the mere 
annihilation of conscious existence be not the true 
penalty of sin, if the real penalty consist in the 
antecedent pain of the sinner, then the whole 
theory of the school referred to about death (i.e., 
extinction of being) as being the wages of sin is 
overthrown. "Death," says Dr. Ives (p. 158), 
" the loss of life [i.e., as he understands it, the 
loss of existence], is the reward of disobedience ; " 
and he quotes Ezek. xviii. 20, "The soul that 
siuneth, it shall die," and Rom. vi. 23, " The 
wages of sin is death," in proof of his proposition. 
Hence, according to this view, the poor sinner 
receives his wages twice over: he twice suffers 
the literal penalty of extermination. It is cer- 
tainly natural to require irrefragable proof of such 
a theory before accepting it. We have shown, as 
we trust, quite clearly, that it has no foundation 
in the Bible. 

3. Another question is. When will the resurrec- 
tion take place? It would in many respects be 



WHEN SHALL WE BE RAISED? 203 

satisfactory, if we could answer this, with many, 
by saying that every one receives his resurrection- 
body immediately after his own death. It would 
be involved in this answer, that the trial and sen- 
tence of every man immediately follows the end 
of his earthly probation, — a view favored by all 
those passages which represent retribution as hav- 
ing reference to the deeds done in the body. It is 
favored, moreover, by the analogy of the resurrec- 
tion of Christ ; by Paul's conception of the spiritual 
body as being related to the material body, as the 
plant to the seed from which it springs ; and by 
the cases of Elijah and Enoch. The doctrine, 
moreover, seems to be supported by such declara- 
tions as 2 Cor. v. 1 : " We know, that, if our earth- 
ly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have 
a building of God, an house not made with hands, 
eternal in the heavens." This passage appears to 
imply that the assumption of the resurrection-body 
takes place immediately after death. 

But notwithstanding these scriptural intima- 
tions, and notwithstanding what may perhaps be 
one's instinctive preference, this answer to our 
question hardly seems to be warranted by the 
general drift of the New Testament. When Christ 
says (John v. 28, 29), " The hour is coming, in the 
which all that are in the graves shall hear his 
voice, and shall come forth ; the}^ that have done 
good, unto the resurrection of life ; and they that 
have done evil, unto the resurrection of damna- 



204 THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD 

tion," it is difficult, by any natural exegesis, to 
reconcile this with the doctrine that the resurrec- 
tion of the dead has already taken place. To 
say, as has been said (e.g., " Bibliotheca Sacra," 
1869, p. 608), that the resurrection here spoken 
of may refer to the final rising-up for judgment, 
and have no reference to the resurrection-body, is 
not only contrary to the implication lying in the 
phrase, " all that are in their graves," but is con- 
tradicted by numerous other still more explicit 
passages of Scripture. There can be no question 
but that Paul, in 1 Cor. xv., is speaking about the 
YesMTrection-bodt/. It is immediately after he has 
been answering (vers. 36-50) the question, " With 
what body do they come ? " that he says (vers. 51, 
52), " We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be 
changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, 
at the last trump ; for the trumpet shall sound, 
and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we 
shall be changed." Words could not more clearly 
affirm that the assumption of the incorruptible 
body is a thing yet future for all who are alr( ady 
dead. Again : how can we explain Paul's charge 
against Hymenseus and Philetus, when he says (2 
Tim. ii. 18) that they have erred concerning the 
truth, " saying that the resurrection is past al- 
ready," if the resurrection is already past ? Even 
though it may be supposed that they used the 
word in a spiritual sense, and denied a bodily 
resurrection, still Paul's characterization of theii 



THE RESURRECTION STILL FUTURE. 205 

error implies that the resurrection, as a whole, was 
still future. We might enlarge on this point ; but 
it is iinnecessary. 

The resurrection, then, according to the New 
Testament, is still future, and is associated with 
the coming of Jesus in his glory (1 Cor. xv. 23 ; 
1 Thess. iv. 16), and with the final judgment 
(John V. 29). The dead are to be raised up " at 
the last day" (John vi. 39, 40, 44, 54, xi. 24). 

But whether all men are to be raised simulta- 
neously ; or, on the other hand, some of the saints 
(especially the martyrs, as many infer from Rev. 
XX. 4) are to be raised before the rest ; or, as still 
others hold, all the saints first, and the unbelievers 
afterwards (according to a different interpratation 
of Rev. XX. 4, 5, according to 1 Cor. xv. 23, 24, 
and according to a possible distinction between 
the phrases " resurrection from the dead " and 
" resurrection of the dead "), — these are questions 
on which we will not enlarge. 

4. What is the relation of the resurrection of 
men in general to that of Jesus Christ ? 

It is remarkable, that, though the New Testa- 
ment represents Christ as having (in some sense 
at least) risen with the same body which was 
crucified and slain, so that, when he rose, the tomb 
was empty, and, when he appeared to the apostles, 
he showed them even the print of the nails in his 
hands and the mark of the spear in his side (John 
XX. 27), yet the resurrection of other men is de* 



206 THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. 

scribed as analogous to his, although they do not 
rise with the same body, but an entirely different 
one. More particularly, — 

(1) The resurrection of men in general is 
represented as dependent on that of Christ. This 
relation is set forth by Paul when he says (1 Cor. 
XV. 20-22), "But now is Christ risen from the 
dead, and become the first-fruits of them that 
slept. For since by man came death, by man 
came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in 
Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made 
alive." The same doctrine is involved in the 
language of John xi. 25 : "I am the resurrection 
and the life. He that believeth in me, though he 
were dead, yet shall he live." 1 Thess. iv. 14: 
" If we believe that Jesus died, and rose again, 
even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God 
bring with him." In the last two passages, refer- 
ence is made to believers only; and there con- 
fronts us at once the question, whether the relation 
is not limited to them. Is the resurrection of 
unbelievers an effect of Christ's resurrection ? It 
would, perhaps, seem unnatural to suppose this to 
be the case. The fact that generally, where the 
resurrection is treated of, believers only are re- 
ferred to, and furthermore that there is certainly 
a peculiar relation between Christ and believers, 
seems to make it improbable that the resurrection 
of unbelievers can be regarded as dependent on 
that of Christ. Still such a connection does seem 



ALL MEN MADE ALIVE IN CHRIST. 207 

to be affirmed. When it is said, " As in Adam all 
die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive," the 
statement, in form certainly, is absolute and uni- 
versal. Although the chapter generally deals 
particularly with the resurrection of Christians, 
yet here it would be unnatural to suppose, that, in 
the second clause, " all " is more restricted than in 
the first. The effect of the death of Adam is 
universal. The whole force of the comparison is 
weakened, if not destroyed, if the effect of Christ's 
resurrection is less so. The death referred to is, 
of course, physical death, as in the parallel passage, 
Rom. V. 14 ; but this death passed upon all men, — 
even those who had not, like Adam, transgressed 
any known command (i.e., infants, imbeciles, &c.). 
In respect to this, now, Adam is called " the figure 
[type] of him that was to come ; " i.e., Christ. In 
short, Christ is called the second head of the race. 
Adam, by his transgression, brought physical death 
on all men : Christ, by his obedience, brought 
physical life to all men. " Since by man came 
death, by man came also the resurrection of the 
dead." 

The same doctrine seems also to be implied in 
John V. 28, 29 : " The hour is coming, in the which 
all that are in the graves shall hear his [Christ's] 
voice, and shall come forth ; they that have done 
good, unto the resurrection of life ; and they that 
have done evil, unto the resurrection of damna- 
tion." Here the resurrection of all men is ex- 



208 THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. 

plicitly affirmed, and this resurrection is described 
as resulting from the dead hearing the voice of 
Christ. He is thus the efficient cause of the 
resurrection of all men. To all men he is "the 
resurrection and the life." 

This, however, does not invalidate the obvious 
truth, -that there is a peculiar connection between 
the resurrection of Christ and that of believers. 
We might adduce numerous passages in illustra- 
tion; but those above quoted may suffice as 
specimens, together with others which will need 
to be cited under the next head. 

(2) The resurrection-body of believers is de- 
clared to be like that of Christ. Paul says (Phil, 
iii. 21) that Christ " shall change our vile body, 
that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious 
body." Again (Rom. vi. 5), " If we have been 
planted in the likeness of his death, we shall be 
also in the likeness of his resurrection." 

This doctrine is closely connected w'ith that of 
the union of Christians with Christ, which is so 
prominent in the New Testament. Christians are 
described as members of the body of Christ, even 
" of his flesh and of his bones " (Eph. v. 30). 
They are in Christ : they derive their life from 
him, as the branches from the vine. Accordingly, 
when Paul is struggling to express the earnestness 
of his longing to " win Christ," and to " be found 
in him," he makes it the climax of his aspiration, 
that he may "know him and the power of his 



UNION WITH CHRIST IN THE RESURRECTION. 209 

resurrection'''' (Phil. iii. 10). The intimate connec- 
tion between our resurrection and that of Christ 
underlies the discussion in 1 Cor. xv., though the 
doctrine is not there often formally stated. But, 
at the conclusion of his description of the spiritual 
body, Paul contrasts (ver. 45) Adam with Christ, 
calling Adam '•'- earthy," and Christ " the Lord 
from heaven" (ver 47). And then he adds (vers. 
48, 49), "As is the earthy, such are they also 
that are earthy ; and as is the heavenly, such are 
they also that are heavenly. And as we have 
borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear, 
the image of the heavenly." The same truth is 
intimated likewise in Rom. viii. 29 ; 2 Cor. iii. 18 ; 
1 John iii. 2. 

(3) The relation between Christ's resurrection 
and that of believers is often depicted as a spiritual 
one. Christians are described as having already 
experienced both death and resurrection with 
Christ.^ Thus Paul says (Col. ii. 20), " Wherefore 
if ye be dead [more correctly, " if ye died "] with 
Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as 
though living in the world, are ye subject to ordi- 
nances?" And, immediately after (iii. 1-3), he 
adds, " K ye, then, be risen with Christ, seek those 
things which are above, where Christ sitteth on 
the right hand of God. Set your affection on 
things above, not on things on the earth. For ye 
are dead [i.e., died with Christ], and your life is 
hid with Christ in God." Here the Christian is 



210 THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. 

represented as having been associated with Christ 
in his death and his resurrection ; and the death 
and resurrection are both represented as spirit- 
ual experiences on the part both of Christ and his 
followers. The death is a dying "from the rudi- 
ments of the world ; " i.e., a death which releases 
one from bondage to the outward services of a 
crude ceremonial system. The new life involves 
the transfer of the heart's service to God and heav- 
enly things. If it seems almost impious to ascribe 
such an experience to Christ, who never needed 
to be absolved from any bondage to the rudiments 
of the world, we can only say, that notwithstand- 
ing the undisputed fact of his sinlessness, and 
notwithstanding the expiatory nature of Christ's 
death elsewhere set forth by Paul, he yet, in the 
passage before us, clearly speaks of Christians as 
being, with Christ, released from the rudiments of 
the world by death. If still this seems like a too 
narrow forcing of the literal sense, we may turn to 
Rom. vi. 9, 10, where the same thing is most un- 
equivocally affirmed : " Knowing that Christ, being 
raised from the dead, dieth no more ; death hath 
no more dominion over him. For in that he died, 
he died unto sin once [once for all] ; but in that he 
liveth, he liveth unto God." The conclusion is 
(ver. 11), " Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to 
be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God 
through Jesus Christ our Lord." This thought is 
expanded and enforced throughout this chapter; 



SPIRITUAL RESURBECTIOK 211 

and in the next (vii. 4) he says, " Wherefore, my 
brethren, ye also are become dead [ye were made 
dead] to the law by the body of Christ, that ye 
should be married to another, even to him who is 
raised from the dead, that we should bring forth 
fruit unto God." We find precisely the same 
thought in Eph. ii. 4-6 : "But God, who is rich in 
mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 
even when we were dead in [by reason of] sins, 
hath quickened us [made us alive] together with 
Christ (by grace ye are saved), and hath raised us 
up together [i.e., together with Christ], and made 
us sit together in heavenl}^ places in Christ Jesus." 
This same thought, that Christians died with Christ 
in his death, and rose with him to a new life irf his 
resurrection, is found likewise in Rom. vi. 4 ; 2 Cor. 
V. 14, 15 (where the correct rendering of "then 
were all dead " is, rather, " then all died," i.e., with 
Christ) ; Gal. ii. 20, vi. 14; Col. ii. 12. 

The doctrine* thus presented of a union between 
Christ and his followers, which involves a spiritual 
connection between his death and resurrection on 
the one hand, and their renunciation of sin and 
introduction into a new life on the other, can 
hardly be regarded as a mere figure of speech. It 
is nowhere presented in the form of an illustrative 
comparison : it is stated as an absolute fact. It 
does not consist with our present object to dwell 
on this point, and attempt to state philosophically 
what is meant by these biblical declarations. If 



212 THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. 

there seems to be a mystical character belonging 
to the doctrine, this itself is a reason for avoiding 
any minute analysis of it ; but it is not a reason 
for discarding the whole thing as a mere rhetorical 
flourish. It is interwoven with the very texture 
of the New Testament, and cannot be eliminated 
without rending the whole fabric. 

At the same time it is to be observed that this 
association of the Christian's present religious 
experience with the accomplished death and resur- 
rection of Christ is brought into close connection 
with the future experience of union with Christ in 
his risen body. Thus Rom. vi. 4 represents us as 
having already died with Christ, in order that we 
may walk with him in newness of life. So in ver. 
6 the old man is said to have been crucified with 
Christ, and in ver. 11 we are represented as being 
made " alive [after having died with Christ unto 
sin] unto God through Jesus Christ." At the 
same time, however, in ver. 8 the living is spoken 
of as a yet future thing, " We believe that we shall 
also live with him ; " and in ver. 5 the assurance 
h given, that, as we have been planted together 
with Christ in the likeness of his death, we shall 
he also in the likeness of his resurrection. So in 
viii. 10 death and life through Christ are described 
as a present fact; but it is immediately followed 
in ver. 11 by the assurance, " If the Spirit of him 
that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, 
he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also 



SPIRITUAL RESURRECTION. 213 

quicken [re-animate] your mortal bodies." A 
similar representation is found in 2 Cor. iv. 10-14. 

The conclusion to be drawn is, that* in Paul's 
conception, the spiritual and the physical in the 
resurrection-life are not so distinct and diverse as 
is commonly thought. In some sense regeneration 
is not only the condition, but is the beginning, of 
the resurrection. The final resurrection, so far as 
it is a part of the Christian's peculiar experience, 
is only the consummation of that spiritual life 
which begins as soon as the soul is by faith united 
to Him who is the resurrection and the life. 

If any one shrink from so mystical a doctrine, 
then at least this conclusion must follow; Paul 
uses the physical fact of a resurrection as an appro- 
priate symbol of the spiritual fact of regeneration. 
And he uses it not by way of formal comparison : 
the figure is not a simile. Regeneration is called a 
resurrection, — called such so often and so unqual- 
ifiedly as to make the impression that the bodily 
resurrection of Christ is already shared in by every 
one who has been renewed in spirit. We have 
then here a usus loquendi remarkably analogous to 
that which is commonly alleged to belong to the 
terms "life " and "death" in the Bible, especially 
in the New Testament. But, before taking up the 
topic here suggested, we will answer one more 
question relating to the resurrection ; viz., — 

5. Is the doctrine of a bodily resurrection taught 
in the Old Testament ? 



214 THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. 

It is obvious to any unprejudiced reader, that, 
whereas the doctrine is abundantly taught in the 
New Testfiment, the Old Testament contains al- 
most nothing clearly teaching or even implying 
it ; and it is a striking proof of the warping 
effect of a wrong theory on one's interpretation 
of the Bible, that those who deny that the Old 
Testament teaches that there is a future life imme- 
diately following upon the present life yet find 
abundant evidence in the Old Testament that 
there is to be a resurrection ! We have no dispo- 
sition to deny that there are some faint foreshad- 
owings of the doctrine in the Old Testament; 
but any reader of the Bible, not prejudiced by a 
theory, must say that those intimations are very 
few and very faint indeed. To what a desperate 
pass Dr. Ives has arrived in his argument may be 
well seen by reading his proof of a resurrection 
derived from the narratives of the Tree of Life, 
the Cherubim, the Deluge, the name of Eve, &c. 
(pp. 126-142). To answer the argument would 
be a waste of time. We will only attend to the 
other alleged proofs. 

^' Although," he says, " our earliest records of 
revelation do not explicitly mention the doctrine 
of a resurrection, yet evidently it was fully under- 
stood by the men of that day; for it was abso- 
lutely essential to their idea of a future life. To 
them life signified actual existence, and death the 
cessation of such existence " (p. 142). But this 



ALLEGED PROOFS FROM OLD TESTAMENT. 215 

is simply a begging of the whole question. Such 
reasoning is overthrown at once by asking, Where 
is the evidence that to those patriarchs death sig- 
nified the cessation of existence? But if it did 
signify this, then what is the evidence that they 
had any idea of a future life at all ? If they said 
nothing about a resurrection, and did say that 
death is the end of existence, then surely, accord- 
ing to the "literal" mode of interpreting the 
Bible, we ought to suppose that they had no idea 
of a future life at all. 

Dr. Ives's next proof comes from Job xiv. 14, 
15 : " If a man die, shall he live again ? " To this 
he adds the remark, " Rather — not a question — 
he shall live again" (p. 143). We entered upon 
an examination of this book fully convinced of the 
author's honesty; and we shall not accuse him 
even here of dishonesty. But we are utterly 
unable to understand how he could make the 
above-quoted statement deliberately. In the 
original Hebrew, the interrogative particle, always 
indicating a question, here stands undisputed. 
Sometimes a sentence without this particle may be 
rendered interrogatively; with it the sentence 
always must be so rendered. Is Dr. Ives ac- 
quainted with Hebrew ? If he is, he is inexcusa- 
ble for making such a translation. If he had 
blindly followed other translators, he might be 
excused; but most certainly no respectable and 
honest translator ever so rendered it. Did he 



216 THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. 

guess that it ought to be so rendered, and, on the 
strength of his conjecture, make a bold venture in 
his emendation ? We are entirely at a loss what 
to think. And yet the one who does this assures 
us (p. 31, footnote) that the correctness of his 
renderings may be verified by any Hebrew or 
Greek scholar ! But the author goes on to say, 
"If it were a question, he answers it himself." 
And then follows the remainder of the passage : 
"All the days of my appointed time will I wait 
till my change come. Thou shalt call, and I will 
answer thee ; thou wilt have a desire to the work 
of thine hands." Let it be remembered that Dr. 
Ives is here in search of the doctrine of the resur- 
rection. The latter part of the passage does seem 
to favor it somewhat. But why does he not quote 
what precedes this in vers. 7-12, where, after say- 
ing that a tree cut down has h©pe of new life. Job 
adds, " But man dieth, . . . and where is he ? . . . 
Man lieth down, and riseth not^ What follows is 
only the expression of a wish : " Oh that thou 
wouldest hide me in Sheol ! . . . that thou wouldest 
appoint me a set time, and remember me ! " 
Then, having thus been led to the thought of a 
new life, he puts the question to himself, " If a 
man die, shall he live? [If this wish of mine 
could be granted], all the days of my appointed 
time I would wait till my release should come. 
Thou wouldest call, and I would answer thee." 
So the best scholars understand the passage. 



ALLEGED PROOFS FROM OLD TESTAMENT. 217 

Dr. Ives fui-ther adduces Ps. xvii. 15, " As for 
me, I shall behold thy face in righteousness; I 
shall be satisfied when I awake in thy likeness." 
He three times thus misquotes the English ver- 
sion (pp. 99, 143, 299), and so mistranslates the 
Hebrew again, though this time it is done tacitly. 
Our version is much nearer right : " I shall be sat- 
isfied, when I awake, with thy likeness " (notice the 
commas, — "satisfied with," not " awake with ") ; 
though "likeness" should be "form." "I shall 
be satisfied with [more exactly, "shall be sated 
with ; " i.e., with a view of] thy form ; " the par- 
allel clause being, " I will behold thy face in right- 
eousness." Comp. Num. xii. 8, where God says 
of Moses, " With him will I speak mouth to mouth, 
. . . and the similitude [form] of the Lord shall 
he behold." The Psalmist, then, affirms that, when 
he awakes, he will sate himself with a view of 
God's form. We have no doubt that this pas- 
sage refers to an awaking from the sleep of death 
(though many question this interpretation) : the 
immediate context, which speaks of the death of 
the wicked, almost requires us so to understand 
it. But yet we have here by no means any clear 
intimation of a bodily resurrection. 

The next passage quoted by our author seems 
to be more explicit; viz., Isa. xxvi. 19: "Thy 
dead men shall live ; together with my dead body 
shall they arise [more correctly, my dead bodies 
shall arise]. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in 



218 THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. 

dust ; for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the 
earth shall cast out the dead." But the notion 
that this is a direct description of a general resur- 
rection of the dead cannot maintain itself. For 
(1) in ver. 14 it is said of the enemies of God's 
people, " They are dead, they shall not live ; they 
are deceased, they shall not rise." Even if we 
assume that a literal resurrection is meant, it is 
positively affirmed that there is not to be a general 
resurrection. But (2) vers. 17, 18 show that the 
description in ver. 19 is probably not to be under- 
stood literally, but figuratively. It is there said, 
" We have been With child ; we have been in pain ; 
we have, as it were, brought forth wind : we have 
not wrought any deliverance in the earth ; neither 
have the inhabitants of the world fallen." It is 
to be noticed that the word here rendered 
" fallen " is the intransitive form of the verb ren- 
dered in ver. 19 " cast out," and is a term desig- 
nating birth. In the latter verse there is a direct 
reference to this expression in ver. 18. That is, 
after the prophet has mourned, that, with all the 
mental pam through which the people of God 
have passed, they have been unable to people the 
land with inhabitants after their desolation, there 
follows the expression of a hope or a wish that 
God would raise the dead of his people. The 
notion of a resurrection of the dead is found here, 
it is true ; but it is a resurrection confined to the 
Jewish people, as contrasted with their enemies. 



ALLEGED PROOFS FROM OLD TESTAMENT. 219 

It is described as something on wliich the prosper- 
ity of the Jewish kingdom depended ; and it is at 
the best very questionable whether the notion of 
the earth casting out (bringing to birth) her dead 
is not to be understood as a poetic mode of 
describing the repeopling of the country in a 
more natural way, as a compensation for the loss 
they had sustained. 

It is certain that Ezek. xxxvii. 12-14, next 
quoted by Dr. Ives, does not refer to a literal 
resurrection. These verses follow the account of 
the vision of the dry bones. After Ezekiel has 
seen them clothed with flesh, and re-animated, 
God says to him (ver. 11), "Son of man, these 
bones are the whole house of Israel : behold, they 
say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost ; we 
are cut off." Then follows (ver. 12) the com- 
mand, "Therefore prophesy, and say unto them. 
Thus saith the Lord God : Behold, O my people, I 
will open your graves, and cause you to come up 
out of your graves, and bring you into the land 
of Israel." The people are in captivity, and are 
hopeless of returning to Judaea. Their hopeless- 
ness is symbolized by these dry bones. The per- 
ions addressed are themselves described as in their 
graves^ and about to be raised ; and yet they are 
the same who just before are described as despair- 
ing. Nothing can be clearer than that there is 
here nothing but figurative language. 

The next passage (Dan. xii. 2) is more to the 



220 THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. 

point. Yet here it is only said that " many of 
them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall 
awake ; " and the connection favors the supposi- 
tion that the Jewish people alone are referred to. 
Certainly a general resurrection is not taught. 

The most that can be said, then, is, that in the 
Old Testament one or two passages faintly fore- 
shadow the New-Testament doctrine of the resur- 
rection, but none explicitly teach it as a general 
truth. 

It certainly seems as if nothing but a strong 
preconception could lead one to find more in the 
Old Testament about the resurrection than about 
an existence surviving the death of the body. 

We now pass on to consider the more important 
question, what the Bible teaches concerning the 
future life in general. 



DEFINITION OF LIFE. 221 



CHAPTER X. 

LIFE AND DEATH, — THE LITERAL SENSE. 

THE subject which we now take up is vital to 
the whole problem concerning the biblical 
doctrine of the final destiny of men. Our first 
duty is to investigate the meaning of the terms 
" life " and " death " as employed in the Bible. A 
neglect to define these terms, and loose assump- 
tions concerning the meaning of them, have led to 
an almost hopeless confusion with regard to this 
topic. 

Let us first consider what is meant by "life." 
Every one knows that the word in our language 
(and its equivalent in other languages) has a 
great variety of meanings. Webster gives no less 
than fourteen definitions to the word; but the 
first meaning defined by him is the primary and 
most important one. We give it entire: "That 
state of an animal or plant in which its organs are 
capable of performing their functions; animate 
existence; vitality; also the time during which 
this state continues, either in general, or in an 
individual instance; as, the life of a tree or a 



222 LIFE AND DEATH, — THE LITERAL SENSE. 

horse." In this one definition, however, it may 
be observed, three distinct meanings are recog- 
nized: (1) vitality^ (2) the state of vitality, and 
(3) the time during which a state of vitality con- 
tinues. The distinction between the first and the 
second may seem to be somewhat subtile : it is 
nevertheless real and apprehensible. 

In the primary sense, life is the mysterious prin- 
ciple (vital principle) which distinguishes animals 
and plants from inorganic substances. Whether 
or not life, in this sense, is a distinct substance 
infused into the organism ; whether it is the forma- 
tive cause of the organism ; whether it is an im- 
material principle, identical with mind, or distinct 
from mind, — these are questions which it is not 
necessary here to discuss. It is enough that all 
agree that there is a certain something^ obscure and 
mysterious as it may be in itself, which character- 
izes all bodies called animals or plants. Different 
in the animal from what it is in the vegetable, it 
yet is sufficiently alike in the two to merit the 
same name. Of course, however, we have here to 
do more especially with animal life, and still more 
specifically with human life. 

The next meaning of the word is that which we 
have defined as the state of vitality. A. living 
organism is such because it possesses the vital 
principle. In this sense we may say life is in it ; 
but, on the other hand, we say a person or an 
animal is in life, as opposed to being in death. 



OLD-TESTAMENT TERMS FOR LIFE. 223 

When we thus use the word " life," it has a shade 
of meaning different from the other. In this sense 
we could not substitute for it the synonyme " vital 
principle." We could not say, a man is weary of 
his vital principle ; but we might say that he is 
weary of life, meaning by this the condition of 
being animated by the vital principle. In other 
words, this secondary sense of the term is more 
general and abstract than the first. It is this 
second sense of the term which is properly anti- 
thetic to " death." We might define it by coining 
a word, " vitalizedness ; " death being a state of 
wTivitalizedness, or rather c?evitalizedness. 

The third sense of the word is easily recognized. 
When we speak of the length of a man's life, we 
mean the length of the time during which he re- 
mains alive. "Life," in this sense, means the 
period covered by the condition of vitality. 

These are the primary and literal senses of the 
word "life." 

Let us now turn to the biblical words denoting 
life. We have already had occasion to notice that 
nephesh (Heb.) and psyche (Gr.) often mean and 
often are translated " life," and that ruahh (Heb.) 
and pneuma (Gr.) sometimes have the same mean- 
ing. When these words are to be so rendered, 
they have the primary sense of vitality^ — the vital, 
organic principle. E.g. : Lev. xvii. 11, " The life 
[nephesh] of the flesh is in the blood." Gen. i. 30, 
" Every thing . . . wherein there is life [nephesK],^^ 



224 LIFE AND DEATH, — THE LITERAL SENSE. 

Judg. XV. 19, "His spirit [ruahh^ life, vitality] 
came again " to Samson after he had grown faint 
through thirst. So in the New Testament : John 
X. 11, " The good shepherd giveth his life [psyche] 
for the sheep." Luke viii. k)k>^ "And her spirit 
\_pneuma] came again." 

Both the Hebrew and Greek languages, how- 
ever, have distinct words for " life " as antithetic 
to "death." That is, for the second and third 
meanings of "life" as above set forth (viz., the 
condition of vitality, and the time during which 
vitality continues) these languages never use the 
terms just spoken of. For these meanings of our 
word " life " the Hebrew uses the word hhayyim. 
This is in form a plural word ; the singular liliay 
being sometimes, but much more rarely, used in 
the same sense.^ It is the term employed when 
life is contrasted with death. Thus Deut. xxx. 19, 

1 This use of the plural in a singular sense is not without 
frequent analogies in the Hebrew. The word for "face," for 
example, is panim, a plural form. Any attempt to find a special 
or subtle significance in this idiom must be futile. Thus, in Mr. 
Pettingell's Theological Trilemma (p. 106), we are told that Gen. 
ii. 7 ought to be rendered, " God breathed into his nostrils the 
breath of lives ; " i.e., " of both animal and spiritual life." Accord- 
ing to this, Gen. vii. 15 ought to be rendered, " They [the beasts] 
went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein 
is the breath of lives;" proving that brutes, as well as men, 
possess a spiritual life. But this is just what Mr. Pettingell, on 
the same page, expressly denies. Equally fanciful and ground- 
less is the notion advanced by Dr. Tayler Lewis (in The Inde- 
pendent, Nov. 11, 1875), that this plural form " seems to suggest 
the thought of a life or lives other than this, higher than this, 
the way to which is through death." On this theory, what can 



0LD-TE3TA]MENT TERMS FOR LIFE. 225 

" I have set before you life [hhayyim] and death." 
So the adjective hhay is used in a corresponding 
sense : 1 Kings xxi. 15, " Naboth is not alive, but 
dead." The same word hhayyim is also used in 
the third sense (life, as denoting the length of 
life) ; as when it is said (Josh. iv. 14), " They 
feared him [Joshua], as they feared Moses, all the 
days of his life." 

These are the predominant senses of hhayyim. 
We leave out of account for the present the 
figurative or spiritual senses of the term. Not 
to burden our pages too much, we will merely 
refer to a few passages illustrating these senses 
of the word. In the sense of life as a state of 
animation opposed to death, it is used, e.g., in 
Gen. xxvii. 46 ; Exod. i. 14 ; 2 Sam. i. 23 ; Job iii. 
20, X. 1 ; Ps. xvii. 14, Ixiii. 3, Ixvi. 9 ; Prov. xviii. 
21 ; Jer. viii. 3. In the sense of life as the period 

be made of Jacob's reply to Pharaoh (Gen. xlvii. 9)? — "Few 
and evil have the days of the years of my life [hhayyim] been." 
Jacob had just given his age as one hundred and thirty years, and 
this he calls the length of his lives — the earthly and the heavenly 
yet to follow — if this fancy is to be taken for fact. Mr. Heard 
(Tripartite Nature of Man, p. 44, seq.), however, says, " The breath 
of lives may be used in the plural to convey the deep truth, that 
the spirit's life never can be solitary. While with regard to all 
other created spirits we can lead a self-contained life, we cannot 
live out of God's presence." It is easy to find deep truths by 
such a process. But it is a truth, if not a deep one, that such 
conceits are unworthy of sober students of the Bible. Any 
Hebrew scholar should know that the plural form hhayyim is the 
ordinary form for the abstract conception life, and that to find a 
" deep truth " in this fact is no more easy than to find in the 
plural form of the Hebrew word for face an equally deep truth. 



- ) 



226 LIFE AND DEATH, — THE LITERAL SENSE. 

during which one lives, it is used, e.g., in Gen. xxiii. 
1 ; Exod. vi. 16 ; Deut. iv. 9 ; Josh. i. 5 ; 2 Sam. 
xviii. 18 ; 1 Kings xi. 34 ; Ps. xxiii. 6, cxxviii. 5 ; 
Jer. lii. 34. 

In some cases hhayyim is used in nearly the 
same sense as nephesh or ruahh^ when these denote 
the vital principle. Thus Prov. xiv. 30, " A sound 
heart is the life \hhayi/im'] of the flesh." So Gen. 
ii. 7, " God . . . breathed into his nostrils the 
breath of life " (rCshamah of hhayyirn). And 
Gen. vii. 22, " All in whose nostrils was the 
breath of life " (literally, " breath of the spirit of 
life "). So also we read in Ps. ciii. 4, " Who re- 
deemeth thy life [hhayyirn] from destruction ; " 
while in Ps. xxxv. 17 it is said, " Rescue my soul 
[nephesh] from their destructions." 

If we turn to the New Testament we find a 
closely analogous use of terms. Whila psyche 
and (rarely) pneuma are used in the more con- 
crete sense of the individual life, or vital prin- 
ciple, we find a different word employed in the 
more abstract sense of life as a state or condition 
of being, and in the sense of life as a period of 
existence. The Greek word corresponding in the 
New Testament to hhayyirn in the Old Testament 
is zoe. This is the word which is antithetic to 
" death : " as Rom. viii. 38, " Neither death nor 
life;" 1 Cor. iii. 22, "Life or death." So 2 Gor. 
iv. 12 ; Jas. iv. 14. It is also used in the sense of 
duration of life : as Luke i. 75, " All the days of 



NEW-TESTA^IENT TERMS FOR LIFE. 227 

our life ; " and xvi. 25, " Thou in thy lifetime re- 
ceivedst thy good things." So 1 Cor. xv. 19. In 
the more primary sense of vitality the word may 
perhaps be taken in Acts xvii. 25, " He giveth to 
all life and breath, and all things." 

But these uses of zoe are comparatively raro. 
In the vast majority of cases it is used in a higher 
and more remote sense, which we shall consider at 
a later point. The verb zao^ of the same root, is, 
however, most frequently used in the more literal 
sense : as Matt. ix. 18, " Come and lay thy hand 
upon her, and she shall live;" Phil. i. 22, "If I 
live in the flesh." 

There is another word used in the New Testa- 
ment which is sometimes translated " life ; " viz., 
bios. It occurs, however, only eleven times : and, 
in the majority of these instances, it denotes, not 
life, but the means of living or subsistence; as 
Luke viii. 43, " A woman . . . which had spent 
all her living upon physicians." It is used in a 
similar sense in Luke xv. 12, 30, xxi. 4 ; Mark xii. 
44 ; 1 John iii. 17. It denotes, in other cases, the 
condition, mode, or course of life ; as 1 Tim. ii. 2, 
'* That we may lead a quiet and peaceable life." 
So also in Luke viii. 14 ; 2 Tim. ii. 4 ; 1 Pet. iv. 
3 ; 1 John ii. 16. Once the corresponding verb, 
5i(?J, is used; meaning " to live," "to conduct life " 
(1 Pet. iv. 2). 

The definition of " death " is a simple matter. 
As already observed, it is antithetic to " life," the 



228 LIFE AKD DEATH, — THE LITERAL SENSE. 

state of being vitalized. A live being is one pos- 
sessed of the vital principle : a dead being is 
one deprived of this vitality. The word is not 
properly used of lifeless things as such. Death 
is not a property of rocks and water. We apply 
the term to that which has been possessed of the 
mysterious but easily recognized principle of or- 
ganic life, but which has lost it. Death is " that 
state of a being ... in which there is a total and 
permanent cessation of all the vital functions " 
(Webster).i 

The importance of a clear conception of the 
meaning of the terms " life " and " death " is 
seen when we find many authors either asserting 
or implying that life is synonymous with existence. 
This is expressly given as a formal definition by 
Mr. Constable ("Duration and Nature of Future 
Punishment," p. 34), who says, " Life, in common 
language, means 'existence.'" The same definition 
is assumed by Mr. Dobney (" Scripture Doctrine of 
Future Punishment," p. 173, seq.). Dr. Ives also 
seems to regard this as so much an axiom, that he 
does not take the trouble to state it, still less to 

1 Dr. Ives says (p. 236), " According to Webster, death, in its 
primary and in all its secondary meanings, is * the termination 
of existence.' In a note, we have a sort of exception in case of 
spiritual death ; but absolutely nothing is found answering to 
modern theology's definition of the first or the second death." 
The hasty reader who does not stop to verify this statement will 
be surprised to learn that in none of the seven formal definitions 
of death given in Webster's Unabridged is any such expression 
found. 



FALSE DEFINITION OF LIFE. 229 

defend it: he simply assumes it. He opens the 
subject (Preface, p. ii) by remarking, " It would 
seem the simplest solution of the question [con- 
cerning the future life] to take Holy Writ to mean 
just what it says, — that death means death, the 
loss of existence ; that life means life, as the 
promised reward." All through the book this 
same assumption runs. Thus, e.g., on p. 239 we 
read, "Death means what mankind understand 
death to mean. . . . Death, in the language of 
the Almighty, means what he knows it to mean 
in human language, — the termination of existence, 
the loss of life." It is true that the same book 
(p. 108) concedes that "it is almost universally 
taught, and as universally accepted, even among 
disbelievers in revelation, that the soul is some- 
thing immaterial, and absolutely indestructible." 
If this is so, then men do not understand death 
to mean the termination of existence. We can- 
not conjecture how the author would try to 
reconcile these two statements. It is very certain, 
however, that the second passage quoted tells the 
truth, — men do not generally understand death to 
mean the termination of existence ; and there- 
fore it follows that the definition of life as 
existence, -and death as the end of existence, is 
entirely without foundation. For the question is 
not what Dr. Ives himself, or a few others with 
him, may think; but it is what men generally 
think. The question is, What conceptions are 



230 LIFE AND DEATH, — THE LITERAL SENSE. 

commonly attached to certain words ? We have 
Dr. Ives's own admission that death is not com- 
monly understood to mean non-existence, — an 
admission not counterbalanced by his other state- 
ment, that death is commonly understood to mean 
non-existence. 

Nothing can be plainer than the truth respecting 
this matter. If life is synonymous with existence, 
then whatever exists lives. If this definition is 
correct, we ought to speak ordinarily of rocks as 
living, of metals as vital, of the air as an animate 
being. But no one holds that life is an attribute 
of every thing that exists. Life is a property 
of organic substances. More particularly it is 
attributed to animal organisms. But the very 
difference between organic and inorganic things is 
that the former are living, and the latter are not 
living. 

The best reply, therefore, to one who says or 
implies that life means existence, is a simple con- 
tradiction. One who reasons on such an assump- 
tion not only contradicts simple truth, but can 
hardly fail to contradict himself. If others have 
not, most certainly Dr. Ives has done so. We will 
give the proof of our statement. 

On p. 106, speaking of the Hebrew word nephesh, 
he says, that, while primarily meaning " organism," 
it has "a second or derived meaning. ... It is 
used to convey the idea of life, which cannot be 
manifested without a soul, or organism, to receive 



Jb 



DR. lYES ON THE MEANING OF LIFE. 231 

and retain it." Here he evidently means by 
" life," not existence, but substantially what is com- 
monly meant by it ; for what would be the sense 
of saying, " It is used to convey the idea of exist- 
ence, which cannot be manifested without a soul, or 
organism, to receive and retain it " ? But this is 
not a mere accidental slip. On p. 115 he says, 
"Let us suppose a healthy man falls into the 
water, and is rescued just as life seems to be ex- 
tinct. You make every endeavor to resuscitate 
him. . . . You omit nothing, if so be the vital 
principle, or spirit, may not really be lost. But at 
last you give over effort : it is all in vain. God has 
taken away that which he alone can restore. What 
is this which lies before you? 'A dead body,' you 
say. Yes ; and it is likewise, in Bible language, 
a dead soul. The organization is intact: every 
organ is in place, and in such condition that the 
vital spark alone is needed to set the human ma- 
chinery in motion again." Here "life," "vital 
principle," and " vital spark," are evidently differ- 
ent names for the same thing. Life is described 
as something that leaves the organism, and may 
be brought back to it. But it is equally evident, 
that by "life" here Dr. Ives does not mean exist- 
ence. The dead organism is described as being 
not only still existent after life had left it, but 
even " intact." In all this part of his book he has 
entirely slipped away from his definition of life as 
meaning nothing but existence. He says of the 



232 LIFE AND DEATH, — THE LITERAL SENSE. 

body (p. 106), " These organs are formed and thus 
related for a special purpose, — to receive and car- 
ry on life." Life, as we have already found him 
saying, " cannot be manifested without a soul, or 
organism, to receive and retain it." But he cer- 
tainly would not say that, existence is confined to 
organisms. Again (p. 107) : " It is the spirit, or 
vital principle, which sets in operation the functions 
of the organism, producing thought, feeling, &c." 
But even while viewing " life " more correctly, ac- 
cording to the common conception of it, untram- 
melled by his definition of it as synonymous with 
" existence," he is yet unable to present a clear and 
"consistent theory of it: for, according to him, life 
is sometimes represented as a principle inherent in 
an organism ; at other times as something " re- 
ceived" and "retained" by it. Adam, he tells 
us, was an organism — a real man — before the 
breath of life was breathed into him (p. 34). Yet 
he admits that "the thought of life ... is sug- 
gested by the thought of organism. For when 
the organism is destroyed, or its functions arrested, 
life ends : on the other hand, when life is taken 
away, the organism comes to its end" (p. 106). 
Still at the same time he insists that the thought 
of life is " not absolutely indispensable " to that 
of an organism. We are left thus in great doubt 
as to what life is : it is distinct from the organ- 
ism ; it is " received " by the organism ; it " sets 
in operation the functions of the organism ; " when 



DR. IVES'S SELF-CONTRADICTIONS. 233 

a man dies, his life " returns to " God (p. 39) ; 
when Stephen died, " he prayed the Lord to take 
his life into his safe keeping till the resurrection " 
(p. 42) ; and our Saviour likewise '' prayerfully 
intrusted his spirit, the breath of life, the vital 
principle, to his Father " (p. 43) : yet at death 
life " ends." On the whole, however, the author 
seems to represent life as a something imparted to 
the human organism, and afterwards taken away 
from it : it " proceeded from and returns to God " 
(p. 274) ; when a man dies, " he parts with his 
life " (p. 38) ; he loses his life (p. 42) ; at the 
resurrection, life is " given back " (p. 43) ; it is 
"restored" (p. 129) ; it is "regained" (p. 128). 

It is manifest, however, that in all this our 
author entirely loses sight of his definition of life 
as being mere existence. What sense would there 
be in asserting that the human " organs are formed 
to receive and carry on " existence ? that a man's 
existence " returns " to God, and is "kept " by him ? 
What hopeless confusion of thought would be in- 
volved in asserting that a man is non-existent^ but 
that his existence continues in existence, and is 
eventually to be given back to the non-existent 
being ! 

But, though this is somewhat of a digression, 
we are tempted to follow our author a little far- 
ther. Does he hold life to be an entity, a material 
substance ? It must be remembered that he utterly 
rejects the doctrine of any thing immaterial. What 



234 LIFE AND DEATH, — THE LITERAL SENSE. 

men call immaterial substance he calls " a literal 
nothing " (p. 273). Life, then, in his view, is not 
an immaterial thing. Is it, then, a material thing ? 
This seems to be the necessary conclusion. As 
we have seen, he regards "spirit" as meaning 
" life ; " and the spiritual body of the resurrec- 
tion is so called, he intimates, because the elements 
of which it is composed are "more highly vital- 
ized, more fully endued with the spirit, or the 
vital principle," than the present body is (p. 117). 
And God differs in nature from men, according 
to Dr. Ives, in that he " is spirit, — life itself " (p. 
274). He is combating the notion of immaterial 
existences : and in view of a possible objection 
derived from John iv. 24, " God is a spirit," he lays 
stress on the fact that it ought to be rendered 
" God is spirit ; " and therefore he concludes that 
this passage "has no bearing whatever on the 
question." The meaning is, he says, that God " is 
spirit, — life itself ; and so must the true worship- 
per worship him with that life which proceeded 
from and returns to God, its giver." 

The only conclusion we can draw from all this 
is, that, according to Dr. Ives's philosophy, life is a 
material but very subtile substance, which per- 
vades all active organisms now living on the earth ; 
that the resurrection-body is to have more of this 
vital substance than the present body has: and 
that God consists wholly of this vital substance ; 
he is "life itself." Here, to be sure, arises a new 



DR. IVES'S SELF-CONTRADICTIONS.'^ 235 

difficulty. He has already told us that life is that 
which " sets in operation the functions of the or- 
ganism, producing thought, feeling, &c." (p. 107.) 
So far as man is concerned, it is the brain, he tells us 
(p. 276), by which thought " is generated." Every 
thing, he says, goes to show " the absolute depend- 
ence of our thoughts upon the function of this 
material organ." Well, then, according to this, it 
is not the " life " which thinks, feels, &c., but the 
brain as excited by the life. But God thinks and 
feels, — at least, it is to be presumed that Dr. Ives 
so conceives him, — and he is nothing hut life. He 
has no brain, or any other bodily organ like ours. 
In his case, then, it must be the life which thinks, 
feels, &c. This suggests an important question : 
If life is that which can think and feel without an 
organism, may it not also think and feel with an 
organism ? And so we find our author virtually, 
though quite unintentionally, justifying the popu- 
lar conception of the soul as something that uses 
the material organs, especially the brain, but is yet 
distinct from them. Indeed, in the passage above 
quoted, we are told that we ought to "worship 
God with that life which proceeded from him." If 
this means any thing, it means that that with 
which we worship is life. But worship is certainly 
an act of the thoughts and feelings; and so we 
find Dr. Ives himself identifying "life" with the 
thoughts and feelings, or with that in which these 
inhere. Therefore, when he talks of the " life " 



236 LIFE AND DEATH, — THE LITERAL SENSE. 

which a man "parts with," which "returns" to 
God, is "kept" by him, and at last "restored" to 
the resurrection-body ; when, moreover, life is rep- 
resented as that of which God wholly consists, 
and as that with which men worship God, — it is 
certainly fair to infer that in such passages he 
means by " life " substantially what ordinary men 
mean by " soul," " spirit," or " mind." For he 
surely cannot really mean to say that men ought 
to worship God with their " existence," though he 
elsewhere insists that life means existence. 

But we are not yet through with the contradic- 
tions in which this author has involved himself 
in his theory of life. It is something, he says, 
which the organism "receives." It is the main- 
spring of all activity in man. Is it, or is it not, a 
part of man ? When it is lost, he tells us, man 
becomes non-existent. Surely it must be a part, if 
not even the whole, of man. It is that without 
which there is no thought, feeling, memory, char- 
acter; it is that without which even the bodily 
organism soon falls into decay and non-existence. 
It must, therefore, be regarded as a most essential 
part of man, or even the very essence of man. 
And at death, we are told, this life returns to God : 
only the dead organism is buried. Now, the ques- 
tion we wish to ask is this: Is the whole man 
buried? Dr. Ives does not weary of illustrating 
the inconsistency of those who say of a deceased 
man, '■^He is buried," when yet they hold that in 



DK. IVES'S SELF-CONTRADICTIONS. 237 

reality the dead body is not the man at all. The 
Bible, he continually insists, assures us that the 
whole man is buried. In Gen. iii. 19, he says (p. 
36), " the Lord God addresses Adam, the man, by 
modern theology's own definition, a compound of 
body and soul ; ' And unto Adam he said, In the 
sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou 
return to the ground ; for out of it wast thou 
taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt 
thou return.' " With this passage he refutes the 
notion that man is a compound of soul and body ; 
and yet he himself holds that the life on which 
all thought and moral character depend — the life 
" with " which we " worship " God — is not buried 
with the defunct body, but " returns " to God, and 
is finally " given back " to the raised organism. 

Thus again it appears, that, after all his denun- 
ciation of ordinary men for holding that there is a 
rational soul distinguishable from the body, Dr. 
Ives himself virtually adopts the popular theory ; 
only, in place of the soul (as generally under- 
stood), he substitutes the word "life." He de- 
nounces the notion of an immaterial substance as 
an absurdity, because it is " utterly unrecognizable 
by the senses God has given us " (p. 274) ; yet 
he believes in a " life " which is separable from the 
body, and is "kept" by God for unnumbered cen- 
turies, but which is certainly quite as " unrecog- 
nizable by the senses God has given, us" as the 
popularly conceived " soul " which he ridicules. 



238 LIFE AND DEATH, — THE LITERAL SENSE. 

Of course there can be no possible objection to 
a man's using a word in two senses. If Dr. Ives 
means to say that " life," both in popular speech 
and in the Bible, sometimes means "existence," 
and at other times the "vital principle," we should 
have to admit that such double use is not self- 
contradiction. But our complaint is, that he no- 
where intimates or claims that there is any such 
double sense of the word. The positiveness and 
absoluteness with which he affirms that life means 
existence, and death the termination of existence, 
and that we should understand the biblical utter- 
ances concerning deeith. literally/, — i.e., as asserting 
that death puts an end to existence, — this implies 
that he does not recognize, even to himself, that he 
attaches more than one sense to the word " life : " 
if he did, common candor would require him to 
take cognizance of the obvious objection, that, if 
" life " has two senses, " death," its opposite, may 
have two senses also ; in other words, it may mean 
not only the end of existence, but the end of a 
certain form of existence. The only indication 
that he is aware of any more than one sense of the 
word " life " is found on p. 107, where he compares 
the Greek words psyche^ bios, and zde. He says, 
''^Psyche . . . denotes life, . . . with a manifest allusion 
to the manner it acquired this meaning: it ex- 
presses what we might call organized life. So the 
Greek hios denotes life, with reference to the 
means of subsistence ; . . . while the Greek zde 



LIFE NEVER SYNONYMOUS \YITH EXISTENCE. 239 

denotes life iii the abstract sense of the word." 
But these are unimportant variations of the one 
notion of "vitality." There is in all this no hint 
of the meaning " existence." 

The truth, however, is, that " life " never means 
simply existence, either in biblical or popular 
speech. It is almost pitiable to see the efforts 
made to prove that the two terms are synonymous. 
Undoubtedly, in some cases, we may substitute 
" exist " for " live," and not destroy the sense of 
the passage. Thus Dr. Ives ("Independent," 
April 18, 1878) appeals to Gen. iii. 22, "And now, 
lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the 
tree of life, and eat, and live forever ; " and he tri- 
umphantly asks, " Is not that to say, lest he con- 
tinue to exist forever; in other words, should never 
die ? " Yet we must answer. It does not mean lest 
he exisit forever, but just what it says ; viz., lest he 
Ihe forever. Undoubtedly it would make sense to 
say here, " lest he exist forever ; " and undoubt- 
edly this statement is involved in the other. And 
so, in all cases where "forever "is joined with 
" live," we might substitute " exist," and not re- 
verse or even materially alter the sense of the 
declaration ; but equally well can we substitute 
"exist" for other words. Thus, when it is said 
(Exod. XV. 18), " The Lord shall reign for ever and 
ever," it would make good sense to read, " The 
Lord shall exist for ever and ever." But who 
would assert that " reign " means " exist " ? Or 



240 LIFE AND DEATH,— THE LITERAL SENSE. 

to take a still better illustration : in place of " This 
city shall remain forever " (Jer. xvii. 25), we 
might say, " This city shall exist forever." But 
does " remain " mean " exist " ? In short, whenever 
the word "forever," or any word denoting con- 
tinuance, is joined to any verb, it will generally 
be possible to substitute the verb " exist " without 
making bad sense. One might say, " The moun- 
tain has been visited by travellers for centuries ; " 
and it would be equally true to say, " The moun- 
tain has existed for centuries." The latter propo- 
sition is implied in the former ; but the two ex- 
pressions are certainly not synonymous. It is a 
general truth, that existence is implied and pre- 
supposed in any positive affirmation about any 
thing. We cannot speak of a man's eating or 
writing or walking without implying his existence ; 
but all this is a very different thing from making 
these words synonymous with existence. 

Dr. Ives says, furthermore (Z5^cZ.), "In Ps. xxi. 4 
is an inspired definition of life : ' He asked life of 
thee, and thou gavest it him, even length of days, 
for ever and ever.' " This is given as a proof that 
"life" means "existence." He ItaliGizes "• length 
of days,''' as if that were the crowning confirmation 
of his definition of " life ; " but if that be a syno- 
nyme for " existence," then v/e might speak about 
the proof of God's " length of days," instead of the 
proof of his " existence." Of course " life " here 
means continuance or preservation of life, and of 



THE FALSE DEFINITION TESTED. 241 

course the preservation of life involves the continu- 
ance of existence. But this is equally involved 
when it is said (ver. 6), " Thou hast made him 
most blessed forever ; " yet no one outside of a,n 
insane - asylum would affirm that "being most 
blessed " is synonymous with " existing." 

It is difficult to be patient in dealing with such 
arguments ; but this matter is so fundamental 
that we must control our impatience, and depre- 
cate that of our readers, while we discuss it a little 
further. It is obvious, that, if " live" is synonymous 
with "exist," it may always be replaced by it. 
Often, as is obvious enough, when it is so replaced, 
the passage still conveys an intelligible and even 
appropriate sense, though never the same sense. 
But the true test of the definition in question is to 
be sought in a uniform substitution of " exist " for 
"live." If the definition is a good one, it must' 
serve well for all cases. Let us, then, substitute 
" existence " for " life," " existent " for " living," 
" exist " for " live," in such passages as the follow- 
ing, and see the result : " If the theft be certainly 
found in his hand existent, ... he shall restore 
double " (Exod. xxii. 4). " When existent [E. V., 
" raw," the same word as is commonly rendered 
" alive " or " living "] flesh appeareth " (Lev. xiii. 
14). " Then shall the priest command to take . . . 
two birds existent and clean " (Lev. xiv. 4). " He 
shall bring the existent goat" (Lev. xvi. 20). 
" This do, and thou shalt exist " (Luke x. 28). 



242 LIFE Am) DEATH, — THE LITERAL SENSE. 

"Only Rahab the harlot shall exist" (Josh, vi 
17). " Son of man, can these bones exist ? " (Ezek. 
xxxvii. 3.) " Son, remember that thou in thine 
existence receivedst thy good things " (Luke xvi. 
25). "Understanding is a wellspring of exist- 
ence" (Prov. xvi. 22). Let the same experiment 
be tried with the same words in English literature, 
and the same result will follow. While in many 
cases " live " or " life " may be replaced by " exist " 
or "existence," without materially marring the 
sense, it is yet never the case that the two concep- 
tions are synonymous. 

The importance of fixing attention rigidly on 
the primary and ordinary meaning of " life " in its 
more literal sense cannot be too much emphasized. 
That primary notion is vitality/, being animate. 
Whatever lives of course exists. A thing cannot 
be animate without being existent; but it is 
equally true that an inanimate thing is an existent 
one. If it were true that life is synonymous with 
existence, then it ought to follow that to be inani- 
mate is to be non-existent. Let it be borne in 
mind, further, that living (being alive), while it 
implies existence, no more implies it than any other 
attribute does. A thing cannot be light or dark, 
crooked or straight, hard or soft, without being 
existent. 

The importance of this simple and incontroverti- 
ble proposition is seen when we come to consider 
the pregnant, or figurative, use of the word " life." 



MR. WHITE ON THE MEANING OF LIFE. 243 

There are few, even among the annihilationists, 
who deny that the Bible, especially the New Tes- 
tament, does present many instances of such a use 
of the term. Edward White ("Life in Christ," 
p. 370), speaking of the word " life," says, " No one 
ought to afi&rm that the bare idea of animate ex- 
istence is all that the term includes. No one of 
any account does affirm it. Our position is, that 
the idea of existence is included in the meaning, 
is fundamental to it; the moral ideas associated 
with it having this conception of eternal sentient 
being in the complex humanity (in opposition to 
death or destruction) as their basis." But, not- 
withstanding this concession, Mr. White still 
everywhere implies, as he does here, that the idea 
of existence is the primary and fundamental one 
in the word " life." Thus on p. 213, quoting John 
i. 4, " In him was life," he says that it is explained 
by the preceding verse, " All things were made by 
him^''' which, he says, " clearly indicates that the 
Logos was not merely the fountain of happiness 
only, or holiness, . . . but of all existence.^^ So 
also he argues (p. 218) from John vi. 57 that 
Christ means, " ' He that eateth me, he also shall 
live by me^ — shall derive not merely happiness, 
but being^ from me, as I derive mine ... by gen- 
eration from the Supreme God." And on p. 373 
he says that " the synonymous terms employed in 
the New Testament in explanation of the death in 
which sinners lie [die ?] by sin compel the asser- 



244 LIFE AND DEATH, — THE LITERAL SENSE. 

tion that the conceptions of existence and non- 
existence are at the basis of the terms 'life' and 
' death.' " The most that he can admit is that cer- 
tain moral ideas are associated with this " funda- 
mental " notion. 

But just here is the fatal weakness of the inter- 
pretation of the phraseology in question. If the 
primary, fundamental idea of " life " were simply 
existence^ there is no rational way of accounting 
for " the associated ideas of holiness and blessed- 
ness " becoming "included" in it, as Mr. White 
(p. 370) says they are. Existence is the most 
general, bare, and abstract of all ideas. It be- 
longs alike to every thing. There is nothing spe- 
cific or suggestive in it. It is utterly empty of 
any thing that, by any emphatic or pregnant use of 
the word, naturally suggests any particular mean- 
ing. It would be entirely contrary to all the laws 
of language for a word conveying primarily such 
a conception to be employed with any such spe- 
cific notion as holiness or blessedness attached to 
it. When now, in addition to this antecedent im- 
probability lying in the nature of the case, we ob- 
serve the simple fact which lexicography, common 
usage, and common sense alike attest so clearly 
that the merest child cannot but acknowledge it, 
— that the fundamental notion of "life" is not 
existence^ but vitality^ — we see how little Mr. 
White's admissions and assertions are worth. 

We are surprised, however, to find this author, 



MR. WHITE ON THE MEANING OF LIFE. 245 

usually not only able, but candid, using sucli lan- 
guage as this: "It follows from this statement 
[the one quoted above from p. 370] that it is no 
sufficient answer to our argument to go about to 
prove that life carries with it an association of 
moral ideas ; for this fact we, too, urgently affirm. 
What must be established to overthrow our argu- 
ment is the difficult position that the terms ' life ' 
and ' living forever ' exclude the idea which they 
most naturally denote. What w^e maintain is, 
that . . . the moral idea of eternal life in Christ 
does not exclude, but imply, the underlying fact 
of an eternal existence depending on union with 
him as the 'life-giving spirit' " (p. 371). And he 
says (p. 370), "An impression widely prevails 
that the life spoken of by the apostle John (z6e^ 
does not include the idea of existence, which is 
always presupposed, but signifies only a moral con- 
dition of holy union with God." If he had said 
only that an impression widely prevails that " life " 
does not properly denote "existence," we should 
quite agree with him; and we have abundantly 
shown, we trust, what yet hardly needs more than 
a bare assertion for proof, that this impression is 
correct ; moreover, not only that the life spoken 
of by John, but that life in general, means some- 
thing utterly distinct from existence. When, 
however, he says, that, in order to overthrow his 
argument, we must hold that life excludes the idea 
of existence, we can only reply, that the assertion 



246 LIFE AND DEATH, — THE LITERAL SENSE. 

is simply preposterous and absurd. The attribute 
of life, like any other attribute, necessarily pre- 
supposes existence. 

There is a peculiar inconsistency in Mr. White's 
doctrine on this point, inasmuch as he holds that 
the dead (in the period between death and the 
final judgment) are still existent. If " live " means 
" exist," then he ought to understand Rev. xx. 5 
to assert, " The rest of the dead existed not again 
until the thousand years were finished." Simi- 
larly, wherever (as in Rom. iv. 17, 1 Cor. xv. 22) 
the resurrection is described as a "quickening" 
(" making alive "), he is logically bound to under- 
stand that those who are thus made alive (exist- 
ent) must before have been non-existent. 

The point of difference between Mr. White and 
us is very simple. He holds that the notion of 
"existence" is primary and fundamental in the 
word " life." We hold that the primary notion is 
vitality^ — the possession of an animate organism ; 
the notion of existence being of course included in 
the conception of every thing that has life, but no 
less of things that have not life. The importance 
of this difference becomes obvious when we come 
to speak of the antithetic term "death." If the 
primary and prominent idea in " life " is existence, 
then the primary and prominent idea in " death " 
would seem to be non-existence, or the termination 
of existence. Hence the temptation, on the part 
of those who hold that death, as it is spoken of in 



DR. WHITON'S GROUNDLESS CHARGE. 247 

the Bible, means extinction of being, to a£&rm 
that "life" properly means merely existence; 
"w^hereas, if the primary meaning of " life " is 
vitality^ then the primary meaning of the anti- 
thetic term is simply the termination of vitality. 

This quiet assumption that " life " means " exist- 
ence," utterly unwarranted, as we have seen by 
lexicography and common usage, appears in an 
almost amusing manner in Dr. J. M. Whiton's 
article in " The New-Englander " for March, 1878. 
He is speaking of the " qualitative " and " quan- 
titative " view of " aeonian life," and says (p. 206), 
" Just here a curious inconsistency is apparent in 
the reasoning of those who find in Christ's teach- 
ing the doctrine of endless conscious suffering. 
On one side, to the annihilationist, who urges his 
literal interpretation of ' life ' and ' death,' they 
reply that 'life ' is not mere being, but well-being; 
* death ' not mere loss of being, but ill-being. Here, 
evidently, they hold that life and death, as terms 
applied to the future state, must be taken quali- 
tatively, not quantitatively, and denote a kind, not 
an amount, of existence. On the other side, to 
one who doubts whether the duration, as distinct 
from the kind or condition, of future existence 
has been revealed in Matthew's picture of the 
judgment, they reply that the promise of an end- 
less life to the righteous requires us to infer, from 
the antithesis, that the punishment of the wicked 
will also be endless. . . . Here they cross over to 



248 LIFE AND DEATH, -THE LITERAL SENSE. 

the position of _ the annihilationist previously com- 
bated, that it is an amount, not a kind, of existence 
which Christ promises or , threatens : and they 
assert what they had before denied ; viz., that the 
quantitative, rather than the qualitative, idea is 
the primary thought- of the Master." 

The answer to this is very simple. Because we 
affirm, that, on account of the phrases "eternal 
life " and " eternal punishment," the future happi- 
ness of the good and the future misery of the 
wicked will be alike endless, Dr. Whiton says 
that we "cross over" to the position that "life" 
means " an amount, not a kind, of existence ; " i.e., 
mere being, and not well-being. How this is so, 
probably no one but Dr. Whiton himself can see. 
Take his first statement : We hold "life " to mean 
" well-being." W^ll, then, " eternal life " means 
" eternal well-being ; " does it not ? And, if one 
enjoys eternal well-being, he must exist eternally; 
must he not ? So, if one suffers eternal misery, he 
must exist eternally ; but is it implied, and did one 
ever hold, that " misery " means " being " ? No : 
the "quantitative" notion — i.e., the element of diir 
ration — is involved, not in the word "life," but in 
the word " eternal." The " curious inconsistency " 
in the case exists only in Dr. Whiton's gratuitous 
imputation to us of a definition of "life" which 
we do not hold, and which no one holds except 
those who are trying to prove annihilationism 
from the Bible. But, even were the imputation 



i 



EXISTENCE IMPLIED, NOT DENOTED, BY LIFE. 249 

well grounded, his charge of mconsistency would 
still be without foundation; for, even if we did 
hold "life" to mean "existence," the "quantita- 
tive " idea in the phrase " eternal life " would still 
be derived from the adjective, not the noun. 

It need not be denied that sometimes the word 
"live" is used when the notion of existence, or 
the continuance of existence, is prominent in the 
conception. Thus, when Jehovah says (Deut. 
xxxii. 40), " I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, 
I live forever," no doubt his eternal existence is 
implicitly affirmed ; and it may be even said that 
tliis is the prominent thing in the affirmation. 
Still it does not follow that even here " live " is 
synonjrmous with " exist." Whenever an affirma- 
tion of perpetuity is made, the adverbial phrase 
denoting such perpetuity is apt to be connected 
with a verb denoting the most essential or character- 
istic thing in the object spoken of. Thus we 
might say, " The mountains shall stand for ages," 
and we thus implicitly affirm that they will exist 
for ages; yet we do not mean that "stand" is 
the same as " exist." Daniel says (xii. 3), " They 
that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the 
firmament; and they that turn many to righteous- 
ness, [shall shine] as the stars for ever and ever." 
It is here implied that the stars continue to exist 
in the firmament ; but the affirmation is made by 
using a verb (" shine ") which expresses what is 
most characteristic of the stars. Living is espe- 



250 LIFE AND DEATH,— THE LITERAL SENSE. 

cially characteristic of intelligent beings; hence 
their perpetual existence may be expressed by 
saying that they live forever : but we should 
never say that the mountains or the stars live 
forever. The phrase "the living God" is often 
adduced as being the biblical mode of designating 
the existent God in contrast with false gods. Of 
course the fact of existence is implied in the 
phrase ; but still the two terms are far from 
synonymous. When God is called the living God, 
it is with reference to the lifeless, senseless idols 
of the heathen, of whom the Psalmist says (cxv. 
5), *' They have mouths, but they speak not ; eyes 
have they, but they see not." 

To recapitulate : Life, in the literal and primary 
sense of the word, denotes the peculiar, familiar, 
though mysterious quality which characterizes 
organic beings; viz., plants and animals. From 
the Latin equivalent, vita^ we derive the English 
word *' vitality ;" which is, perhaps, the nearest 
synonyme of "life." But the latter word is not 
closely confined to the primary sense conveyed by 
" vitality : " it denotes also the vital state or con- 
dition, and the period during which that condition 
lasts. All these modifications of the sense may 
be called "literal " senses. Accordingly, to "live " 
is to be possessed of life, or vitality, — to be or to 
continue in a state of vitality. In the literal sense 
of the word, we use it only of organisms. We do 
not speak of the " life " of mineral substances : 



BECAPITULATIOK 251 

if one should do so, he would be understood to be 
speaking figuratively. 

" Existence " is no synonyme of " life :"" for rocka 
exist as truly as trees and horses ; but they do not 
live. Every thing that lives exists ; but not every 
thing that exists lives. 

"Death" is the opposite of "life;" but it is 
more limited • in its meaning. As antithetic to 
"living," we have not only "dead," but " lifeless," 
— " inorganic," destitute of vitality. Thus a mineral 
is lifeless, but not dead. In the strict sense, death 
is predicated of that which has had life, but has 
lost it. Yet sometimes we speak in a looser sense, 
e.g., of " dead matter," meaning inorganic, inani- 
mate substance. 

It is important, in dealing with the tropical uses 
of the words " life " and " death," to bear in mind 
the literal sense. We are now prepared to con- 
sider the tropical, or figurative, uses of these words. 



252 LIFE AND DEATH. -TROPICAL SENSES. 



CHAPTER XI. 

LIFE AND DEATH. — TROPICAL SENSES. 

XT is a law of language that the secondary or 
-■- tropical senses of a word flow by some natural 
connection of thought from the primary, or literal, 
sense. In the case of the terms under considera- 
tion, this is a very obvious truth. It is not dif- 
ficult to see how all the various senses in which 
these words are used are derived from the primary 
sense of vitality. 

1. A familiar instance of the tropical use of 
" live," " life," &c., appears in those senses to which 
the terms " lively," " animated," " vivacious," &c., 
correspond. It being a marked characteristic of 
living things that they move of themselves, this 
self-activity is sometimes spoken of as being itself 
the life. Hence a sluggish, inactive body, though 
living, is called lifeless. A person manifesting an 
uncommon degree of this activity is called lively. 
" Life," by a still bolder trope, is sometimes used 
for an animated person ; as when we say of a man, 
" He was the life of the company." Likewise we 
speak of inanimate things as being lively when 



TROPICAL SENSES OF LIFE. 253 

in vigorous activity. We apply the same terms to 
particular emotions or states of the mind; as 
when we say that a person takes a lively interest 
in a cause, or that a man is alive to the importance 
of an event. So we apply similar language to the 
product of an active mind when we speak of a 
vivacious discourse, &c. It is nearly the same 
trope when " Ufe " is employed to denote vigor ; as 
when we say that a child is full of life, meaning 
that he has much animal force and energy. All 
such tropical uses of "life" and the cognate words 
naturally flow from the primary sense of vitality. 

2. It is another quite similar trope when " live," 
" life," &c., denote a normal, as distinguished from 
an abnormal, development and use of the vital 
force. When, e.g., we say of a man that he does 
not live^ but only exists^ we mean that he does 
not fulfil the proper object of life. The same 
figure is employed in the familiar line, " It is not 
all of life to live." Here the verb has its strictly 
literal sense, while the noun has the pregnant 
sense. So the verb, in the phrase, "Learn how to 
live ; " i.e., to live rightly. 

3. Again : these words are used tropically when 
they describe a happy, as distinguished from a mis- 
erable, life. The old Latin maxim is " l>um vivi- 
mu8 vivamus^'' — "While we live, let us live." 
Our adjective " lively " often conveys the sense 
of "joyful" or "merry." 

4. Again: it is a tropical use of these words 



254 MFE AND DEATH. -TROPICAL SENSES. 

when they are applied to any thing but organic 
beings. In the case of men who are regarded as 
having souls which may exist separate from the 
bodily organism, the word " live " is used of the 
complex being. Hence it is natural to employ 
the same term in reference to the soul as distinct from 
the body. Thus, if we say the body dies, but the 
soul lives on, we are understood to mean that the 
functions of the soul continue after the physical 
death. Still, this is a tropical use of the word, 
though a very natural one. As the fact of organic 
being is manifested by the action of certain phys- 
ical organs, so the fact of a spiritual entity is 
manifested by the evidences of spiritual activity ; 
and, "life" being the term used of the physical 
organism, it is most natural to transfer the same 
term to the spiritual part, just as all the words 
denoting mental and moral activity and sensation 
are merely tropical uses of words originally used 
of physical things and phenomena. Hence we 
speak familiarly of the soul as being immortal (i.e., 
VLTidying)^ or of its surviving the death of the body. 
In all such cases the prominent thought is, that 
the soul continues to possess and manifest its 
peculiar characteristics after it is separated from 
the earthly body. The figure is similar to that 
which appears in a still more striking form when 
we find water in the Bible spoken of as " living " 
(e.g., Lev. xiv. 5, 52, E. V., "running water," 
John iv. 10, 11) ; i.e., flowing and fresh. 



LIFE AS ATTRIBUTED TO SODLS AND GOD. 255 

It is another instance of the same trope when 
God is spoken of as living. He has no physical 
organism; yet he is often said to live. When such 
language is used, we speak anthropomorphically ; 
that is, we describe God under a form which is 
borrowed from human relations. If we speak 
strictly, and more in accordance with our scientific 
notions of the divine nature, we do not speak of 
the life of God. If we wish to describe him as 
eternal, we do not explain our meaning by saying 
that he never began to live^ and will never die; 
but we say, rather, that there was no beginning, 
and will be no end, to his existence. But God 
being conceived as like man, especially as regards 
man's spiritual nature, it is very natural to apply 
the terms "live," "life," &c., to God. These 
terms, however, mean more than mere existence: 
they imply the possession of attributes which belong 
also to living beings. But material things, that 
are neither organic nor intelligent and sentient, 
are not said to live^ though they exist as truly as 
any thing else. If we ever do speak of lifeless 
matter as living, it is only when it is personified. 

5. We may mention another use of the word 
" live," which can hardly be called tropical, though 
it is derivative. It often means to spend or pass 
one's life^ and, so used, is often substantially equiv- 
alent to " abide " or " remain." Thus we say of a 
man, " He lived in England," — i.e., he dwelt there ; 
or we say of a man that he lived fifty years, or 



256 LIFE AND DEATH. — TROPICAL SENSES. 

that he lived prosperously. In such cases the word 
implies the possession and use of vital powers, 
though the stress is rather on the concomitant; 
that is, the place, time, or manner, in which the 
animate existence is spent, are emphasized; and 
other words might be substituted for " live " with- 
out essentially marring the sense. Yet the verb is 
not equivalent to those other words, as is at once 
seen when we notice that it is only of organic 
beings that this verb is thus used. 

If, now, we turn to the biblical use of the terms 
under consideration, we shall find similar tropical 
uses of them ; yet the usage will not be found to 
correspond precisely with our. own. Everj^ lan- 
guage has its own idioms; and the Hebrew and 
Greek languages naturally vary in some particulars 
from the English in respect to the use of the words 
"life," "live," "living," &c. 

We have already spoken of the literal use of these 
words in the Bible. In the Old Testament this 
is the predominant use of them. In the New Tes- 
tament the verb zao is almost as largely used in 
the same way ; as, e.g.. Matt. ix. 18, " Lay thy hand 
upon her, and she shall live." The nouns nephesh 
and hhayyim^ in the Old Testament, are also very 
largel}' used in the literal sense. The New Testa- 
ment uses psyche very often, and zoe very seldom, 
with reference to physical life. But we pass on to 
notice the tropical uses. Following the same order 
as above, we observe, — 



BIBLICAL TROPES. 257 

1. That in the Bible we hardly find "life" put 
for animation or vivacity of manner : but it is used 
in the sense of vigor; as, e.g., Exod. i. 19, where the 
Hebrew women are said to be " lively " (literally, 
" living "), — i.e., strong, vigorous. It is a some- 
what similar trope when Paul, in Rom. vii. 9, says, 
" When the commandment came, sin revived,''^ 
Sin is here personified, and described as coming to 
life. The life consists in a new vigor manifested 
by it, by which it worked all manner of concupis- 
cence. Whereas it had before, as it were, been 
slumbering, it now became active. 

2. More frequently do we find instances of 
" life " used in a pregnant sense, to denote true life, 
normal life. In reference to physical life, it is thus 
used when it is said (Judg. xv. 19) of Samson, 
after he had almost fainted from thirst, " When 
he had drunk his spirit came again, and he re- 
vived " (literally, " he lived "). His previous con- 
dition is thus represented as not normal, — not fit 
to be called life. So Josh. v. 8 : " They abode in , 
their places in the camp till they were whole " 
(literally, "till they lived"). Similarly 2 Kings 

i. 2, vui. 8, 9, XX. 7; Isa. xxxviii. 9, 21. We 
give here only instances in which, even in the 
tropical sense, nothing more is referred to than 
physical life. Men are said to live in the true 
sense when they are in a normal, sound, healthy 
condition of body. We might enlarge this list in- 
definitely should we adduce all the cases in wliich 



258 LIFE AND DEATH. — TROPICAL SENSES. 

" live " and " life " have reference to the spiritual 
life ; but, as this is a disputed question, we will 
treat those passages by themselves. We will, 
however, here quote one or two passages which 
may serve as a transition to the higher sense. In 
Luke xii. 15 Christ says, "Beware of covetous- 
ness ; for a man's life consisteth not in the abun- 
dance of the things which he possesseth." It is 
here implied that there is a normal and an abnor- 
mal kind of life, and that men are in danger of 
laboring under mistaken notions as to what true 
life is. Still more apposite, as being more akin to 
the physical sense of the word, is the manner in 
which "life" is used in Prov. iv. 22: "They [the 
words of wisdom] are life unto those that find 
them, and health to all their flesh." Here the 
parallelism of "life" and "health" shows conclu- 
sively that the former word denotes vigorous, 
healthy life. It is not necessary now to decide 
whether there is here any reference to this^life 
or the future one. In either case the word in 
question certainly refers, not to the fact, but to the 
kind, of existence. 

3. Closely related to this is the third kind of 
trope; viz., that by which "life " is put for enjoy- 
ment. Happiness is greatly dependent on health, 
and may be regarded as in a sense the end of life : 
so that it is natural, that, figuratively, happiness 
itself should be expressed by the word " life." A 
clear case of this trope is found in 1 Thess. iii. 8 : 



LIFE DENOTING JOY. 259 

*' For now we live, if ye stand fast in the Lord." 
This can mean nothing else than that the fidelity 
of the Thessalonians would give Paul great joy. 
A similar use of the verb is found in Rom. vii. 9 : 
"I was alive without the law once." Here the 
context shows, that, by being alive, Paul means 
being relative^ free from that distress which came 
after sin revived, and which he describes by say- 
ing, " I died." Here, too, we might adduce num- 
berless other examples of "life" used to denote 
the reward of godliness ; but this, again, would be 
met by the allegation that in these cases " life " 
means merely the opposite of extinction : and for 
the present we refrain from referring to them. 
We will, however, adduce a few in which this 
alleged meaning i^ clearly not the true one ; e.g., 
Ps. Ixxi. 20, " Thou, which hast showed me great 
and sore troubles, shalt quicken me [make me live] 
again." Here, manifestly, being made to live is the 
same as being brought out of trouble. Precisely the 
same trope is employed in Ps. Ixxxv. 5, 6, where 
we read, "Wilt thou be angry with us forever? 
Wilt thou draw out thine anger to all generations ? 
Wilt thou not revive us [make us live] again, that 
thy people may rejoice in thee?" Life is here 
put for the joy of God's favor. Likewise in Ps. 
exxxviii. 7, " Though I walk in the midst of 
trouble, thou wilt revive me" [make me live]. 
And Ps. cxliii. 11, "Quicken me [Make me live], O 
Lord, for thy name's sake ; for thy righteousness' 



260 LIFE AND DEATH.— TROPICAL SENSES. 

sake, bring my soul out of trouble." Similarly 
Hos. vi. 2, Isa. Ivii. 15, where " revive " has the 
same tropical sense. The same may be said of 
Gen. xlv. 27, where Jacob's spirit is said to have 
"revived" (lived) after he was convinced that 
Joseph was not dead; and Ps. xxii. 26, "Your 
heart shall live forever ; " and Ps. Ixix. 32, " The 
humble shall see this, and be glad ; and your heart 
shall live that seek God." Being glad is made 
parallel with the heart's living, 

4. The application of the words "life," "living," 
&c., to other than organic beings, is not so fre- 
quent in the Bible as in our own language. God 
is often called " the living God ; " and the phrase, 
" As I live," is often put into his mouth (e.g., Ezek. 
V. 11). Also material things are sometimes, though 
rarely, called "living," as water (e.g., Lev. xiv. 5). 
We do not refer here to such metaphors as that 
of 1 Pet. ii. 5, where stones are called " lively " 
(i.e., living). This is exceptional : men are called 
stones, the figure of a temple being employed, 
which temple is to be built up of men. We refer, 
rather, to the more constant conjunction of the 
epithet "living" with inorganic things, by which 
the tropical character of the language becomes, 
in a measure, obliterated. This is the case in our 
language when life is predicated of disembodied 
spii'its, when we speak of the soul as living for- 
ever, &c. But, the Bible nowhere so speaks of the 
disembodied soul. To be sure, we often read there 



J 



DISEMBODIED SOULS NOT CALLED LIVING. 261 

of " living soiils." We occasionally meet such ex- 
pressions as " Thy soul shall live " ( Jer. xxxviii. 
17; cf. Ps. cxix. 175, Isa. Iv. 3, Ezek. xiii. 19). 
But in all these cases the word "soul" (nephesh, 
so psyche in 1 Cor. xv. 45, Rev. xvi. 3) stands 
for "person" or "animal," and not for the spir- 
itual part as distinct from the physical. It is often 
affirmed, as if the fact were of grave significance, 
that the Bible nowhere speaks of the soul as 
immortal^ — nowhere says that the soul shall live 
forever. Very true; but it is also true that the 
soul, as such, — i.e., as distinct from the body, — is 
never said to live at all. From this, of course, 
materialistic theologians infer that the Bible recog- 
nizes no soul as distinct from the body ; but this 
inference loses all its force when we remember 
that the mere failure to say that the soul lives is 
not the same as saying that the soul does not exist. 
The fact is, that, in the Bible, life is specially pred- 
icated of men conceived as having bodies. Even in 
the future life, in the perfected and final state, 
they are still represented as having bodies. As to 
the intermediate state, it says little. Concerning 
the spirit detached from the body, it is very 
taciturn. It does say enough to show that such 
spirits are conceived as existent. In one passage 
(Luke XX. 38) Christ even says, "All live unto 
him [God]," spealdng of the dead patriarchs. 
This is, perhaps, the nearest approach to an affir- 
mation that souls live apart fi'om the body; but 



262 LIFE AND DEATH. — TROPICAL SENSES. 

the affirmation is made, not respecting spirits as 
such,- but of the j^ersons generally. 

The significance of the foregoing, so far as it 
has any in point, is merely this : While in English 
we often speak of the soul as living after the death 
of the body, the Bible scarcely ever, if ever, uses 
such language. Even in our language, " live " in 
such cases is not equivalent to " exist ; " though 
undoubtedly, in this connection, ^^rominence is given 
to the simple notion of existence, which is always 
involved in the predication of life. It appears, 
then, that, so far as this point is concerned, there 
is less evidence that, in the Bible, "life " stands for 
" existence " than in our own language ; but, as 
we have seen, in our own language the two notions 
are always distinct. When the soul is spoken of 
as living, the meaning is, that it continues to 
manifest the same conscious activity as when con- 
joined with the body. 

5. In the use of "live" in the sense of "spend 
life," the Bible is also somewhat more restricted 
than our language. While we often use the word 
as nearly equivalent to "abide," the Bible never 
uses it in that sense. We do find a few instances, 
however, of " live " conveying the meaning of " de- 
port one's self ; " e.g.. Tit. ii. 12, " Teaching us that 
... we should live soberly, righteously, and godly 
in this present world." So 2 Tim. iii. 12, and 
Gal. ii. 14. These are the only instances we can 
find of this sense of the word in the New Testa- 



TROPICAL SENSES OF DEATH. 263 

meiit, and there are none even of this in the Old 
Tetstament. When the verb conveys this notion 
of spending life in a certain way, we easily see 
how it comes to be so used. All that is involved 
in the simple notion of animate existence is still 
retained, together with the additional notion of 
the voluntary agency of man in shaping the direc- 
tion of the life. The balder, more abstract notion, 
which the verb often conveys in English, of dwell- 
ing or staying^ — a notion which borders upon the 
still more abstract notion of existence^ — is not 
found in the Bible at all. Thus we see that even 
what faint appearances there are in our language 
of the words " live ." and " life " denoting mere 
existence are wanting in the Scriptures. The 
tropical senses all flow easily and naturally from 
the primary sense of vitality. 

Let us now turn to the tropical senses of the 
antithetical words "die," "dead," and "death." 
Inasmuch as " living " is antithetic not only to 
" dead," but also to " lifeless," — not only to " de- 
funct," but to "inorganic," — it follows that the 
tropical senses of "dead" must be fewer than 
those of "living." The tropical senses are here 
also derived directly from the literal one, — loss of 
vitality. 

In consequence of the narrower sense of 
" death " as compared with " life," it is much less 
often used tropically of animate beings. It is used 
of things as inactive or ijioperative : e.g., we say 



264 LIFE AND DEATH. -TROPICAL SENSES. 

of a law that it is a "dead letter" when it has 
ceased to take effect. It exists, but it does not act. 
So we may speak of a dead calni; i.e., a calm so 
profound, that there is no motion, no activity, in 
the atmosphere. We use the term with reference 
to things that resemble death or the effect of death : 
e.g., a dead sleep is one so deep that the sleeper 
seems to be dead; a dead silence is silence like 
that occasioned by the death of all animate things ; 
dead coloring is that which lacks the appearance 
of life. 

We also use this trope in reference to particular 
experiences or emotions of men. Thus we may 
say that our hope or joy or grief or love dies 
away ; i.e., it ceases to operate, to animate us. Of 
course, in such cases, " death " practically becomes 
synonymous with extinction. 'We speak of a man 
in general as dead to particular things ; i.e., as in- 
different to them. 

The biblical use of these words in a tropical 
sense is similar to ours. In the Old Testament 
they are, in the great majority of instances, used in 
the literal sense of death, chiefly of men, some- 
times of beasts, and once of a tree (Job xiv. 8). 
The following are, we believe, all the cases of 
tropical use, aside from those in which the word 
may have the pregnant sense of spiritual death : 
the latter we reserve for future consideration. 

" Death " is put by metonymy for the cause of 
death in 2 Kings iv. 40, " There is death in the 



TROPICAL SENSES OF DEATH IN THE BIBLE. 265 

pot ; " and Exod. x. 17, " Take away from me this 
death." It is put poetically for dead men in Isa. 
xxxviii. 18, "Death cannot celebrate thee." In 
Ps. xlix. 14 death is personified as the shepherd 
of the dead. But such tropes are not specially im- 
portant to our subject. 

In Gen. xx. 3, Exod. xii. 33, 2 Sam. xix. 28, men 
are said to be dead, when the meaning is that they 
are doomed to die, or are in danger of death. 
The figure here does not lie in any tropical mean- 
ing attached to the word " dead," but rather in the 
rhetorical figure of putting the present tense for 
the future. 

Other things than organic creatures are some- 
times said to die. With" reference to the passages 
which speak of souls as dying we need say noth- 
ing here, but refer to what was said on p. 20 seq. 
We confine ourselves here to clearly tropical uses 
of the word. Thus, in 1 Sam. xxv. 37, it is said 
of Nabal that "his heart died within him" on 
account of what his wife told him about David, 
"and he became as a stone." In the previous 
verse it is said, that, wJiile he was drunk, his 
"heart was merry within him." The meaning, 
then, seems to be, that, instead of being merry as 
before, he was filled with fear and despondency : he 
lost all his life, — i.e., his joyous animation. It is 
possible, however, that " heart " is here to be taken 
in a more literal sense, and that the statement 
means that it ceased beating. In either case, death 



266 LIFE AND DEATH.— TROPICAL SENSES. 

is put for a cessation of activity. In Job xii. 2 
Job says to his friends, "No doubt but ye are 
the people, and wisdom shall die with you." The 
meaning is obvious : wisdom is personified, and is 
ironically said to be destined to die — i.e., to disap- 
pear — when these three men die. Here dying is 
practically the same as becoming extinct. In 2 
Sam. XX. 19 we read, " Thou seekest to destroy 
[literally, kill] a city." Similarly Gen. xlvii. 19 : 
" Wherefore shall we die before thine eyes, both 
we and our land ? " Here places are said to be 
killed, when the meaning is that they are to be 
desolated, their life and prosperity destroyed. 

Turning to the New Testament, and reserving 
as before, for the present, all discussion of the more 
disputed passages in which " death " is alleged to 
have a spiritual sense, we find the following in- 
stances of tropical use : — 

In Rom. iv. 19 the decay of generative power in 
Abraham and Sarah is expressed by calling the 
body "dead." The meaning is, that, as to that 
function, their bodies had lost vitality, — had 
ceased exercising their functional activity. 

Similar to this is the figure found in Jas. ii. 17, 
20, 26, where faith without works is said to be 
dead. The meaning is, certainly, not that faith is 
non-existent, but that it is inoperative and useless. 
Precisely the same trope occurs in Heb. vi. 1, ix. 
14, where we read of " dead works : " that is, the 
works have in them no spiritual vitality : they are 



TROPICAL SENSES OF DEATH IN THE BIBLE. 267 

fruitless, like dead trees. In Eph. ii. 16, however, 
where Christ is said to have "slain the enmity" 
between Jews and Gentiles by the cross, the put- 
ting to death is equivalent to putting an end to. 
In Rom. viii. 13, where the " deeds of the body " 
are said to be "mortified," — i.e., put to death, — 
the meaning is that the carnal passions are sub- 
dued, their activity and vitality destroyed. 

A different, though yet tropical, use of these 
words is found in Rom. vii. 8-11. Paul says, " Sin, 
taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in 
me all manner of concupiscence ; for, without the 
law, sin was dead " (ver. 8). Here sin is personi- 
fied, and is described as being dead until the 
commandment came. Being dead is here put in 
opposition to the working of concupiscence. After 
the coming of the law, sin became active. Death, 
therefore, is here the opposite of activity. In the 
next verse the same thought is expanded : " For I 
was alive without the law once; but, when the 
commandment came, sin revived, and I died." 
Here we find the activity of sin, which had been 
more literally expressed in the preceding verse, 
directly called life. Here, however, Paul says, 
that, when sin revived, he died. What is this 
death? Some understand it to be the eternal 
death to which he became liable ; but the context 
decides against this. "I was alive without the 
law once," he says. The death which follows, 
and which was occasioned by the coming of the 



268 LIFE AND DEATH. -TROPICAL SENSES. 

commandment, must be antithetic to this life. 
Clearly, the life which he speaks of having had 
before the coming of the commandment could not 
have been mere physical life : that continued after- 
wards also. No less certain, however, is it that that 
life cannot be the same as he afterwards (viii. 6) 
speaks of as identical with a spiritual mind. It 
is something which precedes conversion, and even 
conviction. It can be nothing else than the state 
of unconcern (perhaps also the relative innocence 
of childhood) which resembles the peace of the 
spiritual life, though vastly different from it. The 
death which follows must be the unhappiness 
which an awakened conscience occasions. It in- 
volves, indeed, forebodings of future evil; but 
what is here spoken of is primarily the uneasiness 
of one who is alarmed, but who has not yet become 
reconciled to God, leading him finally to exclaim, 
" O wretched man that I am ! who shall deliver 
me from the body of this death ? " Paul goes on : 
" The commandment which was ordained to life I 
found to be unto death; for sin, taking occasion 
by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew 
me " (vers. 10, 11). This being slain is, of course, 
the same as the dying which is described in ver. 9.^ 

1 Mr. "White (Life in Christ, p. 374) derives a singular argument 
from this verse. If, he says, death, as used by Paul, means 
merely moral death, and has no reference to existence or non- 
existence, " then it ought to make sense to say that a wicked 
man is ' killed in sins ' (Eph. ii, 1), or that he is spiritually killed 
by transgression, and will be slain and killed to all eternity in the 



TROPICAL SENSES OF DExVTH IN THE BIBLE. 269 

In another class of passages death is put figura- 
tively for insensibility. Thus (Rom. vi. 2) Paul 
says, " How shall we that are dead to sin live any 
longer therein?" This verse is followed by a 
development of the same thought, in which the 
apostle represents the Christian as translated, by 
his acceptance of Christ's redemption, into a new 
state, vdth. entirely new relations. We are buried 
with Christ into death (ver. 4), and raised with 
him in his resurrection (ver. 5). The old man is 
crucified with Christ; so that henceforth the do- 
minion of sin is broken, and we serve it no longer 
(ver. 6). " For," adds Paul, in a statement of a 
general and popular character, " he that is dead is 

miseries of hell. But ordinary preachers would not now think 
of telling a wicked man that the law or curse of God would kill 
him. That would not express their idea of ' death.' They would 
be afraid, lest the sinful man should take it in the sense of liter- 
ally losing his life in hell. St. Paul, however, used the word 
constantly and fearlessly as synonymous with death, — a decisive 
proof that the radical meaning of death, the loss of literal life or 
existence, lies at the basis of it wherever it is held forth as the 
doom of the wicked." On this we remark : (1) Even if we mir/ht 
always substitute "be killed" for "die," it would not follow 
that it would always be rhetorically appropriate. It is common 
to say that men die of consumption and other diseases. It is cer- 
tainly not so common, nor so appropriate, to speak of men as 
being killed by consumption. Still less should we say that one 
had been killed by a natural death. That we do not speak of 
men being killed in sins is therefore, of itself, of very little 
signiiic^nce. But (2) Paul, we are told, " used the word [apok- 
tc/nd, kill] -constantly and fearlessly as synonymous with death." 
Tlic implication is, that we differ from Paul in our usage. What 
is the fact ? Paul uses the word apokleino in all his Epistles /our 
times. In two of these cases — Bom. xi. 3, 1 Thess. ii. 15 — it haa 



270 LIFE AND DEATH. — TROPICAL SENSES. 

freed [justified, acquitted] from sin" (ver. 7): 
i.e., when a man dies, he is no longer held to the 
law which he has previously broken ; he is trans- 
ferred into new relations and a different state of 
existence. So, " if we be dead [more exactly, " if 
we died "] with Christ, we believe that we shall 
also live with him" (ver. 8). "For in that he 
died, he died unto sin once [once for all] ; but in 
that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise rec- 
kon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, 
but alive unto God through Jesus Christ " (vers. 
10, 11). There is only one meaning to be reason- 
ably attached to the phrase " dead unto sin " as 
here used. It means that the Christian is removed 
to a sphere in which sin no longer claims his alle- 

tlie literal sense of putting an end to physical life. These cases, 
therefore, have no bearing on the question in dispute. The other 
two passages are Kom. vii. 11 (above discussed), and 2 Cor. iii. 6: 
" The letter killeth; but the spirit giveth life." By the letter, as 
the context shows, is meant the Mosaic law. The passage is 
closely analogous to Rom. vii. 11. In neither case is there any 
direct reference to any punitive or retributive working of law. 
Paul nowhere speaks of God as killing the sinner; and yet, while 
Paul uses "die" and "death" over and over, on almost every 
page of his writings, as a designation of the effect of sin and the 
doom of the sinner, Mr. "White, after referring to these two passages 
(one of which, moreover, certainly does not, and the other prob- 
ably does not, refer to the final doom of th6 wicked), is embol- 
dened to assert that Paul "constantly and fearlessly" uses the 
word ** kill " as synonymous with " death " ! In view of these 
facts, it is clear, that, if Mr. White's argument is good for any 
thing, it is good against Paul, or rather against himself. It 
appears, that, instead of using words "constantly and fearlessly " 
otherwise than we do, Paul agrees remarkably with " ordinary 
preachers." 



THE PHRASE, " DEAD UNTO SIN." 271 

giance. He is dead to it, insensible to its power ; 
he is alive unto God ; he is no longer tne servant 
of sin (vers. 16, 17), but of righteousness (ver. 
18). Now he is "made free from sin," and has 
his "fruit unto holiness" (ver. 22). Death to sin 
is synonymous with freedom from sin. 

The same thought is continued in chap, vii., 
where the point is illustrated by the law of mar- 
riage, according to which the death of the hus- 
band releases a wife from her allegiance. So Paul 
argues : " Ye also are become dead to the law 
by the body of Christ, that ye should be married 
to another, even to him who is raised from the 
dead" (vii. 4). Here "law "is used instead of 
" sin ; " but the meaning is substantially the same. 
The law, according to Paul, is that which is found 
to be unto death (ver. 10). Sin takes occasion 
by the commandment, and develops all manner of 
evil desires (ver. 8). And in viii. 2 the still more 
comprehensive phrase, " law of sin and death," is 
used to denote that from which the Christian is 
delivered. Precisely so Paul says, in Gal. ii. 19, 
"I through the law am dead to the law, that I 
might live unto God." How this is he explains 
in the next verse, where he says, " I am crucified 
with Christ : " i.e., Christ died in order to satisfy 
the demands of the law; he died "through the 
law : " and I, sharing by faith in his death, am 
become partaker of his life ; " I [my old self] live 
no longer, but Christ liveth in me." 



272 LIFE AND DEATH. — TROPICAL SENSES. 

It has been attempted to dispose of this class 
of passages by rendering the phrase in question 
" dead by sin ; " i.e., exposed to final extinction 
by reason of sinfulness. This is done, for in- 
stance, by Rev. Thomas Davis, in an appendix to 
his work on " Endless Sufferings not the Doctrine 
of Scripture ; " and this interpretation is ap- 
proved by Mr. White ("Life in Christ," pp. 282, 
371). Not to anticipate what we shall hereafter 
urge in objection to the prolepsis, which is on 
this theory assumed to be used, it is only neces- 
sary to study the passages in their connection to 
see the impossibility of such an exegesis. Thus, 
to begin with the last passage quoted (Gal. ii. 19), 
Mr. Davis quotes approvingly Dr. Burton's para- 
phrase, " The law denounces death. ... In con- 
sequence of the law, I was condemned to death by 
the law, that I might be restored to life by God." 
In the original Greek we have dia nomou nomo 
apethanon ; dia meaning " through, " " by means 
of." Then we have nomo^ the dative case of nomos, 
" law," which, it is true, also in some cases denotes 
nearly the same relation of thought (e.g., in Eph. 
ii. 1, 5, " dead through sins "), though more fre- 
quently it denotes the relation expressed in Eng- 
lish by "to" or "for." But here the case is 
practically settled by the intolerable tautology 
brought out by Dr. Burton's own rendering. It 
amounts to this : " I through the law am doomed 
to death through the law " ! As to Rom. vi. 2, 



THE PHRASE, "DEAD UNTO SIN." 273 

the context is decisive. Mr. Davis, indeed, claims 
that, as " death " in the previous chapter is spoken 
of as the consequence of sin, it must here have 
the same sense. But the more immediate context 
decides in favor of a different interpretation. 
The next sentence (ver. 3) is, " Know ye not that' 
so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ 
were baptized into his death ? " And throughout 
the chapter this notion of union with Christ in his 
death is the keynote of the apostle's argument. 
We "died with Christ," he says (ver. 8). But, 
when he died, "he died unto sin" (ver. 10). 
Therefore we, having died with liim, ought to 
reckon ourselves to be " dead indeed unto sin, but 
alive unto God through Jesus Christ" (ver. 11). 
Mr. Davis is forced, for consistency's sake, to 
render verse 10, "He [Christ] died hy sin;" i.e., 
" in consequence of man's sin." But what intel- 
ligible sense is conveyed by saying that we died 
with Christ, if the meaning is, that before his 
death we were (not dead, but) condemned to 
death in consequence of our own sins, while he 
was put to death, not in consequence of his own 
sins, but the sins of other men, and, moreover, 
his deatli was the very means by which our death 
was abolished? Furthermore: whereas Paul says 
(ver. 11), " Reckon ye also yourselves to he dead 
indeed unto sin, but alive unto God," this inter- 
pretation requires us to change the tense, and 
make it read, " Reckon yourselves to have been for- 



274 LIFE AND DEATH. — TROPICAL SENSES. 

merly dead through sin, but to be now alive 
through God." But it is hardly worth our while 
to dwell longer on so forced an interpretation. 

To the foregoing are to be added certain pas- 
sages already referred to in another connection 
(pp. 209 seg.), in which Christians are said to have 
died with Christ. In Col. ii. 20 this death is 
expressly said to be a death " from the rudiments 
of this world." In other passages (as 2 Cor. v. 14, 
Gal. ii. 20, vi. 14) the language is more absolute. 
But the fuller statements of Rom. vi. show con- 
clusively that what is meant is no literal death, 
whether temporal or eternal, but a death to sin 
involved in the beginning of a life of holiness. 
The same is affirmed in full by Peter (1 Pet. ii. 
24), who says that Christ " bare our sins in his 
own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, 
should live unto righteousness." Here the word 
(apogenomenoi) rendered " being dead " is an 
unusual one, occurring only here in the New Tes- 
tament, and meaning literally "having become 
away from." The obvious meaning is, that, Christ 
having assumed the burden of our sins, we are to 
forsake sins, become alien to them, and live unto 
righteousness. 

In all these cases death clearly denotes insensi- 
bility, want of interest, want of inclination. 
When men are said to be "dead to sin," it is 
meant that their vital energies and affections are 
not exercised upon it. 



CONCLUSION. 275 

We thus see that the same word, when tropical- 
ly used, has widely different senses according to 
the connection. At one time it has a bad sense, — 
dead to that which is good ; at other times it has a 
good sense, — dead to that which is bad. At still 
other times (as Rom. vii. 9) it denotes unhappi- 
ness. It is used, with reference to things, in the 
sense of inactivity. But the point to be here 
especially noted is, that all these various senses 
flow from the one literal and prinlary sense of the 
loss of vitality. It is no material exception to 
this, when, in a few instances where death is predi- 
cated of things, dying, or being put to death, is 
synonymous with being put out of the way, or 
with disappearing (Job xii. 2, Eph. ii. 16). The 
death of a man involves his disappearance from 
among the living. Naturally enough we may 
sometimes use the term figuratively to denote a 
final termination of a particular appearance or 
manifestation of an affection or feeling ; but it is 
no less true that all these tropical senses- have for 
their basis the literal sense of life as involving 
organic activity. 



276 LIFE, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 



CHAPTER XII. 

LIFE, — THE SPIBITUAL SENSE. 

WE now take up that large class of passages 
in which "life" and "death" are used 
absolutely to designate the fact or result of a 
right or of a wrong spiritual state. We treat 
here especially of those which have predominant 
reference to the future and final state of men. 
No one disputes the fact that this usage prevails : 
the only dispute relates to the meaning of the 
terms when used with this reference. 

The common impression of Christendom has 
been that the word "life," when used in the Scrip- 
tures to denote the state or the destiny of good 
men, means a right religious state, religious well- 
being, a state in which one has the favor of God. 
Happiness is, of course, involved in such a state ; 
but it is a misapprehension of the biblical lan- 
guage to suppose that happiness is the central 
idea of the word. 

This tropical and pregnant use of the word 
" life " is easily derived from the literal sense of 
vitality. We have seen (p. 257 seq.') that such a 



DERIVATION OF THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 277 

pregnant sense is found in tlie Bible where the 
reference is only to physical soundness, or to a state 
of temporal comfort, and relief from trouble. It is 
entirely natural that the same term should be 
employed to designate a sound and undisturbed 
state of the spirit, — a state in which the religious 
affections attain their highest normal development. 
Such a state may very appropriately be called one 
of religious life. As the physical system may, in 
an emphatic sense, be said to possess life when 
all the physical organs are in a perfectly healthy 
and vigorous condition, so the soul may appropri- 
ately be said to possess life when the affections and 
the will act normally and healthily according to 
the divine law. Such a trope, we say, is natural 
and intelligible. 

But the advocates of the doctrine of conditional 
immortality hold that the promise made to the 
pious is the eternal prolongation of conscious 
existence. This doctrine is founded on the as- 
sumption that the primary and literal sense of 
" life " is " existence." This, however, is so obvi- 
ously incorrect, that a mere contradiction is almost 
sufficient for refutation. We need not, at any 
rate, repeat what we have already said on this 
point. 

So much may be conceded, — that "life," though 
primarily denoting, not existence, but vitality, 
might come to be used respecting animate beings 
with special reference to the mere fact of exist- 



278 LIFE, -THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

ence. This sense is derived from the third modi- 
fication of the literal sense (see p. 222) ; viz., the 
duration of the state of vitality. We may say, 
" God is the ever-living one," or " The soul will 
live forever," and have predominantly in mind the 
notion of perpetual continuance of being. 

But the advocates of this doctrine of condition- 
al immortality lay especial stress on the claim that 
they take the term "life" in the literal sense, 
whereas (they say) the traditional theory rests on 
a figurative interpretation of the term. This 
would, even if true, not be conclusive as to the 
correctness of their interpretation. That depends 
on the results of a fair exegesis. The literal 
understanding of a phrase may be wrong, and the 
figurative understanding of it may be right. But 
we do not need to depend on such a reply. "We 
deny the correctness of the allegation itself. 
While we admit that our view of the word " life," 
as used in the Bible (especially in the New Testa- 
ment), assumes a figurative, or pregnant, use of 
the term, it is easy to show that the annihilation- 
ist no less assumes a tropical sense ; nay, that he 
has to depart farther from the primary sense than 
v/e do. The proof of this statement is easy. 

Inasmuch as the primary sense of "life" is 
physical or organic vitality, we have to assume, on 
our theory, a tropical sense two steps removed 
from the primary one: that is, we have to as- 
sume. (1) that " life," properly denoting the ani- 



FIGURATIVE INTERPRETATION UNAVOIDABLE. 279 

mating principle of a physical organism, comes to 
denote the conscious activity and experience of 
the immaterial spirit ; and (2) that it is used preg- 
nantly to denote a sound or perfect form of such 
activity and experience. The annihilationist, 
however, assumes a meaning of the term which is 
always two, and often five or six, steps removed 
from the primary one : that is, he has to assume 
(1) that "life," properly denoting the vitality 
which characterizes a physical organism, comes to 
be used of the conscious person ; ^ and (2) that 
the specific sense of vitality is replaced by the 
general sense of existence. But in a large propor- 
tion of instances he has to assume (3) that the 
meaning " existence " is replaced by the meaning 
"continuance of existence," or "second exist- 
ence." But even this does not answer the pur- 
pose in most cases, and hence we find three more 
tropes assumed in setting forth the " literal " 
meaning of "life." It is assumed .with regard to 
a large class of passages (4) that there is em- 
ployed the figure of prolepsis, — i.e., that that is 
ascribed to the present which really belongs to 
the future ; and (5) it is assumed that with the 
general notion of "existence" is associated the 
collateral notion of happiness or well-being. But 

1 Materialists like Dr. Ives of course would claim, that, the 
person being the organism, there is no trope here; but, not to 
argtie that there is even in their case a real, though not confessed 
trope, what we have said certainly holds tnie of the school repre- 
sented by Mr. Hudson and Mr. White. 



280 -LIFE, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

even this will not satisfy the requirements of many- 
passages; and therefore it becomes necessary to 
assume (6) that " life " denotes, not vitality, nor 
existence, nor continuance of existence, but the 
means by which the continuance of existence is to 
be attained. 

In view of this aspect of the case, one might 
perhaps be excused for repelling with some ear- 
nestness the accusation that the common under- 
standing of the phrase in question rests on a forced 
and figurative interpretaion, while the other rests on 
a simple and literal interpretation. Considered as 
a merely rhetorical and linguistic question, the 
presumption is immensely against the advocates of 
annihilationism. Their great argument is founded 
on a misstatement of the facts in the case. The 
common interpretation is more simple, and involves 
less recourse to tropical and derivative senses of 
the word " life " than the interpretation boastfully 
called the literal one. 

The presumption thus gained at the outset is 
greatly strengthened when we come to observe 
the manner in which the Bible actually uses the 
phraseology in question. We may distinguish 
four different ways in which the New Testament 
speaks of the life which is peculiar to the Christian. 

1. This life is represented as something imparted 
by or through Christ, and as a peculiar and present 
characteristic of the believer. The foundation of 
this representation is to be foand in the New-Tes- 



SPmiTUAT. LIFE A PRESENT THING. 281 

tament doctrine of regeneration^ as the introduction 
to a new spiritual state. John tells us, in the very- 
beginning of his Gospel (i. 4), that " in him [the 
Word] was life, and the life was the light of 
men ; " and (i. 12, 13) that " as many as received 
him, to them gave he power to become the sons 
of God, even to them that believe on his name, 
which were born [begotten], not of blood, nor 
of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, 
but of God." Clearly the life of Christ, which 
became the light of men, is here represented as 
imparted to those who believe on him. They 
are born (or, more exactly, begotten) again, and 
become the sons of God. A new life is given to 
them. In John iii. 3, 5, the same truth is again 
announced : " Except a man be born again, he can- 
not see the Idngdom of God." In his First Epistle 
John repeatedly makes use of similar language : 
" Every one that doeth righteousness is born of 
him [God] " (ii. 29). "Beloved, now are we the 
sons of God" (iii. 2). "Whosoever is born of 
God doth not commit sin" (iii. 9). "We know 
that whosoever is born of God sinneth not " 
(V. 18). 

To precisely the same effect is the language of 
Paul when he says (2 Cor. v. 17), that, " if any 
man be in Christ, he is a new creature .[crea- 
tion] ; " and (Gal. vi. 15) that " in Christ Jesus 
neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncir- 
cumcision, but a new creature [creation] ; " and 



282 LIFE, -THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

(Tit. iii. 5) that God in his mercy has saved lis 
" by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of 
the Holy Ghost." The same thought lies in the 
phrase " new man," which Paul represents Chris- 
tians as having " put on " (Col. iii. 10, Eph. iv. 24) ; 
and in the " renewing of the mind," by which they 
are " transformed " (Rom. xii. 2) ; and in the " new- 
ness of life " (Rom. vi. 4), in which they are to 
walk. Peter likewise describes Christians as those 
who have been " begotten again unto a lively [liv- 
ing] hope " (1 Pet. i. 3), as those who have been 
" born [begotten] again ... by the word of God " 
(i. 23) ; and he therefore exhorts them (ii. 2) " as 
new-born babes " to desire the sincere milk of the 
word. According to James also (i. 18), God " be- 
gat us with the word of truth." 

We have here the important fact, that the ac- 
ceptance of Christ as a Saviour is described by the 
New Testament as involving a change in man 
worthy to be called a new generation, the begin- 
ning of a new life. This new life is described as 
a present condition of the soul. Thus Paul says 
of himself (Gal. ii. 20, as correctly translated), 
" I [my old self] live no longer, but Christ livetli 
in me ; and the life which I now live in the flesh 
I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved 
me, and gave himself for me." So in 2 Cor. iv. 11 
he speaks of the life of Jesus as " made manifest 
in our mortal flesh ; " and in Col. iii. 3, 4, of our 
life as being "hid with Christ in God," and of 



WHY THE NEW LIFE IS DENOTED BY ZOE. 283 

Christ as being "our life." In Rom. viii. 6 he 
says, that "to be spiritually-minded is life and 
peace ; " and in ver. 10, " If Christ be in you, . . . 
the Spirit is life [liveth] because of righteousness." 
In Eph. ii. 5, and Col. ii. 13, he says that God has 
" quickened " [made alive] those who were " dead 
in [through] sins." This impartation of life is a 
present fact. 

In short, the doctrine of the New Testament is, 
that, when sinners become Christians, they are 
introduced into a new life, a state of spiritual 
vitality. They receive "the spirit of adoption," 
and become " the children of God " (Rom. viii. 15, 
16). It is to be noticed that the word rendered 
" life " in this connection is zde^ — the word which, 
as we have before observed, denotes primarily the 
state of vitality. Psyche could not appropriately 
be used in this higher spiritual sense ; for this 
term denotes life^ as the principle of animal vi- 
tality, — a meaning which easily passes over into 
that of the somZ, as the organ of thought and sen- 
sibility. Regeneration does not impart a new 
organ of thought and feeling ; but it does intro- 
duce one into a new state of thought and feeling. 
The psyche is spoken of as a thing that can be 
saved (Mark iii. 4) or lost (Mark viii. 36). The 
zoe^ in the literal sense, is rather a condition^ which 
may be begun (Acts xvii. 25) or ended (Luke 
xvi. 25).» 

1 Tbis shows how little value there ia in Mr. Pettiogcll's dia- 



284 LIFE,— THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

Nothing can be clearer than that, as physical 
generation is the beginning of physical life, re- 
generation — the being begotten by the Spirit — is 
the beginning of spiritual life. If this' new birth 
(or generation) is not literal, but spiritual, then 
the resultant life is not literal, but spiritual. The 
true meaning lies on the surface. But Dr. Ives 
(p. 118 seq.') undertakes to explain all this away 
by an interpretation meriting notice as an exegeti- 
cal curiosity. Calling attention to the fact, that, 
in the Greek of John iii. 5, the article before 
"Spirit" is wanting, he makes the whole declara- 

covery (?) fhaX, psyche and 2oe are so related that the former " is 
used when mere animal life is denoted; that it is identified with 
that which is material and earthly, and never with that which is 
immaterial and heavenly;" while " zoe seems to have a higher 
and more spiritual signification," being " constantly used to des- 
ignate that higher and better life which is imparted by the Spirit 
of God " (p. 24). The truth is, that these two words cannot be 
compared in this way at all. Psyche, in its primary sense, does, 
it is true, denote mere animal life: but so does zoe; only the 
former denotes the principle of vitality, the latter the condition 
or time of vitality. Paul could not have said (Acts xx. 10) of 
Eutychus, " His zoe is in him; " but, on the other hand, Abraham 
could not have said to the rich man (Luke xvi. 25), " Thou in thy 
psyche receivedst thy good things." Yet both psyche, used by 
Paul, and zoe, used by Abraham, are employed in the lower fjense 
of animal life. Zoe is likewise used in this same lower sense in 
Jas. iv. 14, 1 Cor. xv. 19. On the other hand, psyche is often 
used in a higher sense. No better illustration of the distinc- 
tion betweeia the two words can be given than is found in the 
verse quoted by Mr. Pettingell (p. 25), John xii. 25, " He that lov- 
eth his psyche shall lose it, and he that hateth his psyche in this 
world shall keep it unto zoe eternal." The psyche, according to 
this, is something that is to be preserved unto an eternal zoe. 
Surely it cannot be something merely '* material and earthly." 



%4 



DR. IVES ON REGENERATION. 285 

tion have reference to the resurrection ! This he 
endeavors to substantiate by reference to the fact 
that Paul (in Acts xiii. 33, and Rom. i. 4) speaks 
of the resurrection of Christ as the fulfihnent of 
the declaration in Ps. ii. 7, " Thou art my Son : 
this day have I begotten thee." And so he un- 
derstands being born of Spirit to mean " entrance 
on the new spirit-life." Furthermore, he insists 
that the clause, " So is every one that is born of 
the Spirit," in the comparison of such a person with 
the wind, must refer to the power which the res- 
urrection-body has of coming and going " like the 
unseen wind " ! He says, " Modern theology has 
the hardihood here to interpolate or substitute a 
word. It tells us this statement, ' So is every one ' 
really is, ' So is [born] every one that is born of 
the Spirit.' " We do not apprehend that " modern 
theology " will be much frightened by his denun- 
ciation of this interpolation, even when printed in 
small capitals, especially when it is observed that 
Dr. Ives himself makes free use of interpolations 
whenever he thinks the true sense is elucidated by 
them, and does so even in his interpretation of the 
next verse but one in this very passage. But let 
us see what his interpretation involves. (1) If 
the sonship of Christ began with the resurrection 
of Christ, as Dr. Ives aflBrms, then it follows that 
before his resurrection he was not God's Son. 
And then what shall we do with such declarations 
as John iii. 16, " God . . . gave his only-begotten 



286 LIFE, -THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

Son"? (2) Furthcrinoro, it follows that Chris- 
tiana cannot bo called God's children nntil after 
the r(;surrection. But John tells us (1 John iii. 
2), " Beloved, now arc wo the sons of (lod, and it 
doth not yet appear what we shall be." Dr. Ives 
quotes the latter part of this verse, " We know 
that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him," 
in this very discussion, in order to illustrate the 
doctrine of the likeness of our resurrection-bodies 
to Christ. But why does he omit the first part? 
And what does he have to say to all those other 
passajj^es which speak of Christians as those who 
have been begotten? lie has no explanation of 
them to give at all. (8) Observe, that when Nico- 
domus, after Christ's comparison of the regener- 
ated with the wind, asks, ** How can these things 
be ? " Christ answers, " If I have told you earthly 
things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if 
I tell you of heavenly things?" This new birth, 
then, according to our Saviour, is among the 
earthly things : according to Dr. Ives, it is among 
the heavenly things. (4) Notice, further, that 
whereas in vor. 8 Jesus says, " Except a man bo 
born again [or, from above]," ho says in ver. 5, 
'VlCxcept a man bo born of water and of the 
Spirit ; " evidently meaning the one expression to 
explain the other. But what has the water to do 
with the matter? Manifestly there is 'a reference 
to baptism as the external symbol of the internal 
change. But Dr. Ives says (p. 120) of the risen 



ni: l\ ICS ON REOENKRATION. 287 

Sasioui, '*As one, before *born of water, and 
[now] born of Spirit* (Gr., ek^ from water, from 
Bpirit, genitive of material, as John ix. 6 ; our 
present body nine-tenths *of water,' our next a 
8/>/r*V-body), he had entered into the spirit-life." 
According to this, then, we are to understand that 
our Lord, deeply impressed with the scientitio 
though not commonly-iuulerstood fact, that nine- 
tenths of the human body consists of water, took 
occasion to inform this anxious inquirer after 
religious truth that man for the most part is not 
made out of duaty as had been commonly con- 
(•(uved, but out of water. To bo sure, he rather 
implies than declares it; and, when he says that 
I man must be born from water, ho speaks some- 
what obscurely if he means merely that the man 
when first born consists chiefly of water. But 
this is what Dr. Ives is convinced that our Saviour 
means; so that the upshot of his dectlaration is, 
that, in order to enter tlio kingdom of Ood, first, a 
man must come into existence with a very afjiie- 
ous l)ody ; and, secondly, he must have a spiritual 
body ! As to moral or religious character, not u 
single word I The fact, that, having come into ex- 
istence, he consists largely of water, is a piece of 
, (^entific information thrown in by the way, being 
of no sort of consctiuence to the main question, 
'i'he strangest of all is, that our Saviour immedi- 
ilely proceeds to say, "That which is born of the 
llesh is flesh [which, according to Dr. Ives, muBt 



288 LIFE, -THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

be synonymous with water'], and that which is 
born of the Spirit is spirit." If by "water" in 
the first place he meant "flesh," how unfortunate 
that he should have used two different words with- 
out indicating that they are synonymous! How 
almost impossible it is to imagine that they are 
synonymous, considering that the being born of 
water is coupled with the being born of spirit as 
one and the same thing ; and no one ever thought 
of making them antithetic till Dr. Ives had the 
" hardihood to interpolate " the additions " be- 
fore " and " now " ! But we have given more 
space to an examination of this interpretation than 
it deserves ; yet it is perhaps well to exhibit the 
quality of the expositions of Scripture given by 
one who has very much to say about "modern 
theology " as perverting the meaning of the word 
of God. 

We will here notice the manner in which Mr. 
Pettingell ("Theological Trilemma") treats this 
question. He too, apparently, regards "life" as 
properly denoting " existence ; " though we no- 
where find any clearer definition than such a state- 
ment as this : " Eternal life . . . means, literally, 
eternal Ufe^^ (pp. 17, 178). But, when he comes 
to speak of the regenerate or spiritual state, we 
find him strangely confused. His doctrine is this : 
The psyche (soul, life) is "that which man pos- 
sesses in common with all animals " (p. 24). This 
psyche, when denoting "life," he distinguishes 



•MR. PETTINGELL ON THE NEW LIFE. 289 

from zoc, which, he says, " has a higher and more 
spiritual signification" (Ihid.'). At regeneration 
the soul receives a new life (pp. k>Q^ 127). Man 
" has the beginning of another life in his soul. 
He does not lose his identity ; for it is the same 
soul that receives this new life " (p. 152). "The 
old life of the soul is mortal : " the new life " is 
immortal " (p. 153). The soul thus has a " ca- 
pacity for a twofold life, — the one natural and 
mortal, and the other spiritual and immortal '* 
(p. 127). 

But what is the " soul " of which Mr. Pettingell 
speaks ? On p. 105, seq.^ he argues in favor of the 
doctrine of trichotomy. He makes a sharp dis- 
tinction between the soul Qi^syclie) and the spirit 
(^pneuma). " Man, in his original state, was en- 
dowed with a threefold nature, — a body, soul, and 
spirit " (p. 111). " The soul is the life of the body, 
and the spirit is the true normal life of the soul of 
man. But, when used distinctively in the word 
of God with reference to fallen man, soul denote's 
the mind in its Adamic, or what is called its natu- 
ral or sensual, relations ; and spirit designates that 
which is heavenly and divine in him. In man's 
pui*e and normal state the spirit dominates the 
soul, and the soul the body ; but, in his fallen con- 
dition, the order is reversed, and man is in disorder 
and ruin. The spirit is the breath of God. It is 
an immortal principle: it cannot die. But the 
soul can die spiritually, and it can die also natu- 



290 LIFE, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

rally ; and, after it has lost its true spiritual life, 
it must die naturally, as in all other animals" 
(p. 112). 

Nevertheless, the author makes the soul the point 
of unity in man. " In the man that is born again 
we do not see two persons ; for there is only one 
soul. . . . The soul preserves its identity through 
all this change, from the capacity it has for a two- 
fold life " (p. 127). But these two lives are the 
spiritual (pneumatical) and the " natural or souli- 
cal" (p. 128). The spiritual life " is designated 
by zoe, in contradistinction from psyche^ the soul's 
lower or natural life " (p. 129). " The old life of 
the soul is mortal : this [the new, spiritual life] is 
immortal, and is as distinct from it as any other 
two kinds of life in nature can be" (p. 153). 
" The new life in the soul is eternal because it is 
spiritual: it is the Pneuma^ the breath of God 
himself" (^Ihid.-). 

We have quoted enough to give, on the one 
hand, a tolerably full statement of Mr. Pettingell's 
doctrine, and, on the other, a suggestion of the 
utter confusion of thought which pervades his dis- 
cussion. What, besides the body, is mortal in 
man ? At one time it is the soul itself (pp. 112, 
113) ; at another it is the soul-life of the soul 
(p. 153). Psyche is used sometimes to denote the 
personality, sometimes the lower animal life ; and 
the . two things are conjoined, so that the ".soul " 
has a " soulical " life (p. 128). Man was naturally 



MR. TETTINGELL ON THE NEW LIFE. 291 

endowed with a spirit (^pneumd) ; but, since the 
fall, if his statement on p. 112, above quoted, is to 
be taken as it reads, the spirit is dominated by the 
soul, and the soul by the body. The spirit, then, 
still remains, even in fallen man. Moreover, in the 
same paragraph, we are told that the spirit " can- 
not die." The soul^ to be sure, may lose "its 
true spiritual life," and must, therefore, " die natu- 
rally." But is the spirit lost ? Does it die ? He 
tells us, that, being the breath of God, it cannot 
die. What, then, becomes of it when the soul 
becomes extinct? To be sure, he tells us, five 
pages later (p. 117), that the thing addressed in 
the threat, " Thou shalt surely die," " is not the 
body alone, nor the soul alone, nor the spirit 
alone, nor any two of them together, much less 
the body on the one hand, and the spirit on the 
other; while the soul, in which the personality 
of man especially resides, is to live on forever. 
But the whole man together, in the totality of his 
being, is to die." If we can understand this, it 
means that the threat of death included the spirit; 
yet we are repeatedly assured that the spirit can- 
not die. Clearness and consistency are not marked 
excellences of this treatise. If we should attempt 
to help the* author to express himself, we might 
suggest, that, in his view, " spirit " means the same 
as "spiritual life." So he seems to imply on 
p. 153,. where he says that " the new life in the soul 
... is the Pneuma" If so, then in the natural 



292 LIFE, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

man there is no pneuma at all, and the statement on 
p. 112, about the order of domination, is incorrect: 
it should be rather said, that, by the fall, the spirit 
was wholly lost. What, then, is this spirit? As 
we have suggested, it may be understood to mean 
the new spiritual life of the converted man. But 
is the new life a new set of faculties, a new ca- 
pacity for apprehending religious truth, and a new 
will, disposed to serve God? He says (p. 152) 
that this new life of the Christian is " not new in 
some metaphorical sense, as denoting simply that 
he is a reformed man; that he now forsakes his 
old way of sin, and begins to regulate his life by 
a higher standard of morality ; that he now seeks 
and finds his enjoyment in higher things. It 
means all this, but infinitely more. • He is actually 
a. ' new creature.^ He has the beginning of another 
life in his soul. He does not lose his identit}'- ; for 
it is the same soul that receives this new life." 
We find no clearer answer to our question than 
this; and this is no satisfactory answer at all. 
Either the pneuma (spirit), which, we are told, 
was one of the three parts of the original man, 
was an organ of perception, will, and feeling, — in 
short, was that in which the personality inhered, — 
or it was not. If it was, and if it was lost at the 
fall, and is recovered at conversion, then the iden- 
tity is lost. If a man is " actually a new creature," 
— i.e., literally so, — then he is not the same crea- 
ture. If a new set of faculties — a new intellect, 



MR. PETTINGELL'S DOCTRINE EXAMINED. 293 

new sensibilities, a new will — have been brought 
into being, then not the old soul is transformed, but 
a new person is created. But if the original spirit 
was not that which constituted personality, but 
merely denoted a normal state of the soul, which 
soul did constitute the personality, then regenera- 
tion can mean nothing more than the restoration 
of that normal state of the soul ; in other words, it 
can mean nothing more than that the soul is " re- 
formed." 

But Mr. Pettingell persistently assures us that 
the soul is more than reformed : it receives a new 
life^ a second life, "an actual life" (p. 155). 
We are therefore obliged to remark, that this mode 
of talking about "life" is utterly nonsensical. 
The soul, he says, has a capacity for a twofold life. 
The one life is mortal ; the other, immortal. Now, 
the only just comment on this is to say, that, on 
his theory, it has no meaning. It must be remem- 
bered, that, so far as Mr. Pettingell has given us 
any definition of " life," it is that it is synony- 
mous with " existence ; " at least, all his argument 
against the current theology rests on that assump- 
tion. If this is his definition, then he holds that 
the one soul is capable of two existences^ one of 
which is mortal, the other immortal. " This new 
life begins before the soul is dead in its lower na- 
ture, and continues on after this death takes place, 
iiiid is not afi*ected by it" (p. 127). So, then, the 
, oul, after having had for a while an animal exist- 



294 LIFE, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

ence, begins to have a spiritual existence; and 
these two kinds of existence go on side by side. 
Now, what intelligible sense is there in this, unless 
life is understood to mean a certain condition or 
quality of the soul? In fact, on p. 173, he calls 
eternal life a " state which continues forever." He 
says (p. 118) that " there are various kinds of life 
in nature," and so also in man. But surely there 
are not various kinds of life in one and the same 
thing in nature. How, then, does this illustrate his 
theory of two lives in one soul? If "life " is used 
figuratively for condition or property^ we can un- 
derstand him ; but this he disavows. If by it he 
means "existence," his theory is only worthy to 
be classed with the popular adage about the nine 
lives of a cat. 

That Mr. Pettingell really means by "life" 
something else than " existence " is evident when 
he says, e.g. (p. 153), " All the inferior forms of 
life are transitory. The objects they animate are 
earthly, and go to decay." If " existence " is sub- 
stituted for " life," the statement affirms that vari- 
ous forms of existence animate certain objects ! 
This is pure nonsense, unless " existence " means 
vitality. In fact, he elsewhere speaks (pp. 120, 
133) of the " moribund vitality " which the soul 
may have after the death of the body. And all 
through the book, Avhere the animal and the spir- 
itual life are spoken of, it is manifest that not 
existence is or can be meant, but merely a certain 



MR. PETTINGELL'S DOCTRINE EXAMINED. 295 

condition or quality of the human being. In 
view of this doubtless unconscious double use of 
the word " life," it is almost amusing to find the 
author indignantly commenting on the "double 
game" and " logodsedaly," of which he alleges 
his opponents to be guilty in their use of the 
terms "life" and "death" (pp. 182, 183). One 
who can say that the spirit " cannot die," and yet 
" is to die ; " who can say that the same identical 
soul can have two contemporary lives, while yet 
by "life" he means "existence;" who Can say 
that the spiritual life is not a condition (p. 160), 
but is a stiate (p. 173), — such a man would do 
well to indulge less in declamation, more in defini- 
tion, and very sparingly in criticism. 

If it were worth the while, we might fill many 
more pages in exposition of the errors and confu- 
sion which characterize this book; but we for- 
bear. Our present object is to notice, that, amidst 
a great cloud of verbiage, the author yet recog- 
nizes the truth which we are here setting forth ; 
viz., that regeneration is represented by the New 
Testament as the beginning of a new life. Under 
the figure of a new birth, a new creation, a mak- 
ing alive of that which has been dead, there is ex- 
pressed the truth that the soul has entered into 
a new, a radically changed, moral and spiritual 
state ; and this state is called " life." 

Mr. White (" Life in Christ ") is, as might be 
expected, more sober and clear in his treatment of 



296 LIFE, -THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

this topic. He defines regeneration as consisting 
(1) in "transformation into the moral likeness 
of Christ ; (2) passing from death into life ; enter- 
ing into that life of Christ, the second man, which 
is eternal" (p. 279). He recognizes the true 
nature of the change wrought, and does not so 
badly involve himself as Mr. Pettingell in confu- 
sion by using " life " in a double sense in relation 
to the same thing. He holds that the life into 
which one enters at regeneration is the certainty 
of eternal life ; i.e., of endless existence. To be 
sure, when he says that "the spirit enters into 
Christ's ' eternal life ' now " (p. 281), his form of 
expression seems to imply that he uses " life " in 
the sense of moral state; but he distinguishes 
between these two things. We have a right to 
object, however, to such phraseology. If the life 
which is due to regeneration is nothing but the 
certainty that the life which had begun before the 
regeneration will continue forever, then it is mis- 
leading to speak of it as something " entered 
into " at the time of regeneration. If by " life " 
in this connection is not at all meant the moral 
and spiritual change effected in the soul, but only 
an existence that will never be terminated, then it 
is not true that that life is entered into at regen- 
eration : it was entered into at the beginning of 
the natural life. He says that " the result of true 
regeneration is to bestow the gift of everlasting 
life on the whole nature " (p. 280). But this gift, 



MR. WHITES DOCTRINE OF THE NEW LIFE. 297 

in ^Ir. White's mind, can mean only the assurance 
that existence will be everlastingly perpetuated: 
so far as life (existence) is concerned, it is not 
now given, nor entered into. At the best, there- 
fore, there is a figure here. "Life" stands for 
" the certainty (or assurance) that life shall never 
end," — a tolerably bold figure, it must be con- 
fessed, when it is considered that there is a pre- 
vious figure involved; viz., "life" put for "exist- 
ence." 

It is, moreover, absolutely impossible to push 
this figure of prolepsis into all the passages which 
describe the new life as a present possession. It 
lies in the very nature of the figure involved in 
the description of Christians as " born again " 
that the new life is a present thing. In perfect 
accordance with this, the New Testament repeat- 
edly speaks of this life as something now pos- 
sessed by the believer. We have already quoted 
several passages. We will add a few more. In 
2 Cor. iv. 10 Paul speaks of " bearing about in 
the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the 
life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our 
body." This life of Christ, which in Gal. ii. 20 
he represents as having been substituted for his 
own, he here speaks of as made manifest to others. 
What sense would result if "life" here means 
merely "existence," or rather "the certainty of 
eternal existence " ? John tells us (1 John v. 12), 
"He that hath the Son hath life, and he that 



298 LIFE, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

hath not the Son of, God hath not life." Again : 
Christ sajs (John v. 24), " He that heareth my 
word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath 
everlasting life, and shall not come into condem- 
nation, but is passed from death unto life." 
Similarly it is said (1 John iii. 14), " We know 
that we have passed from death unto life, because 
we love the brethren. He that loveth not his 
brother abideth in death." Dr. Ives does not 
refer to this passage, but quotes John v. 24 as 
follows : " ' But is passed from the death into the 
life,' — from those over whom death is impending 
to those who have the deathless life in promise to 
be 'put on' at the resurrection to life" (p. 156). 
That is, when Christ tells us Ihat we are passed 
into life^ he does not mean life (existence, i.e., Dr. 
Ives's literal sense of life), nor men who are alive, 
nor even men who are going to be alive, but men 
who are going to live forever. This is the inter- 
pretation of one who says that we must take 
God's truth '-^precisely as God gives it to ws"! 
Again : Christ says (John xvii. 3), " This is life 
eternal, that they might know thee the only true 
God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." 
Here the figure of prolepsis cannot be resorted to 
by those who profess to adhere to the literal sense. 
We have a definition of life ; and it is not defined 
as existence^ but as knowledge of God and of 
Christ. Hence (as, e.g., Mr. Hudson, " Debt and 
Grace," p. 173; "Christ our Life," p. 75) they 



MR. HUDSON ON ROM. VIII. 6. 299 

are obliged to resort to the explanation that here 
life- denotes the means of securing life. The same 
device has to be applied to Rom. viii. 6 : "To be 
spiritually-minded is life and peace." The possi- 
bility of such an interpretation may be admitted; 
yet scarcely a parallel can be found in all the 
Scriptures.* And, even if we should admit the 
possibilit}^ of such a rhetorical trope, we have 
hardly got half way through with our problem. 
According to Mr. Hudson, Paul's language signi- 
fies, not that a spiritual mind is the means of pro- 
curing a life not yet possessed, but that it is the 
means of prolonging a life already possessed. So, 
then, we have life put (1) for existence^ (2) for 

1 We say, " scarcely a parallel ; " for the parallel passages 
adduced by Mr. Hudson are not exact parallels. He quotes 
John i. 4, " In him was life, and the life was the light of men; " 
John xi. 25, " I am the resurrection and the life; " John xiv. 6, 
" I am the way, the truth, and the life." But Christ is called, hy 
way of emphasis, the Life, because he most eminently possessed 
that life which he imparted to others. Moreover, he is here 
described, not as the means of obtaining life, but as the one who 
bestows it. Mr. Hudson also refers, without quotation, to " fre- 
quent expressions in the book of Proverbs " as supporting his 
view. He probably has in mind such passages as Prov. iii. 22, 
" So shall they [wisdom and discretion] be life unto thy soul, and 
grace to thy neck." This passage is parallel to Rom. viii. 6 : but 
it does not prove Mr. Hudson's point; for here, too, the true 
explanation is, that "life" is used in a pregnant sense. The 
same may be said of iv. 22, viii. 35, and all other passages which 
might plausibly be adduced in this book. A happier citation 
might have been made from Dent. xxx. 20, " It is thy life " (so it 
should l>e rendered), and xxxii. 47, " It is your life," where these 
statements are used with reference to obedience to the divine 
commands; that is, obedience is the condition of the preserva- 
lion of life. 



300 LIFE, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

the prolongation of existence, and (3) for the 
means of prolonging existence ; and all this in 
order to maintain a literal interpretation which 
is not literal; while the simple explanation that 
"life" denotes the new spiritual condition, which 
consists in having a spiritual mind, — the obvious 
meaning of the verse, involving only a simple and 
natural trope, — is not only favored, but, we may 
say, necessitated, by the uniform drift of the New 
Testament in its doctrine of regeneration. 

The exegetical violence which has to be prac- 
tised in order to maintain the assumed literal sense 
of " life " strikingly appears where the statement 
is in a negative form ; as John vi. 53, " Except ye 
eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his 
blood, ye have no life in you." To say, " Ye have 
no existence in you," or " Ye have no eternal ex- 
istence in you," is very near to nonsense. It is 
true, that, in the next verse, Christ says, " Whoso 
eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal 
life ; " but the very order in which the two expres- 
sions, " life " and " eternal life," occur, is a conclu- 
sive refutation of the theory we are opposing. 
If the prominent thought were that eating Christ's 
flesh and drinking his blood are essential in order 
to the perpetuity of existence, then the adjective 
ought to have been expressed in the first instance ; 
but even then the thought would have been 
awkwardly and obscurely expressed. Even Mr. 
White here almost forgets himself. He saya 



INCONSISTENCY OF ANNIHILATIONISTS. 301 

(p. 218), ''''Bread was the symbol of life ; but how 
much more was blood ! ' The blood is the life there- 
of,' — not simply the happiness of a living being, 
but its life. And here Christ declares that life 
eternal depends on drinking his hlood^ which was 
his life." Here the literal meaning of life is almost 
recognized to be what it is ; viz., vitality. It inheres 
in the organism which eats and drinks, and which 
is sustained by eating and drinking. The eating 
of Chi'ist's flesh is admitted to be metaphorical. 
By what right is the life claimed to be literal? 
Christ says (just what the metaphor requires), that, 
unless one eats, he now has no life in him, — i.e., no 
spiritual life; but Mr. White makes him say, 
" Unless you eat my body (metaphorically), you 
will not continue to possess life (literally), though 
now you do have life." And, be it remembered, 
all this straining of Christ's language is performed 
in order to insist on preserving a literal inter- 
pretation of " life ; " which is not literal, after all. 

The virtual confession here almost made by Mr. 
White, that " life " in this passage denotes, not 
existence, but a vital principle, is still more nearly 
made by Mr. Hudson ("Christ our Life," p. 78), who 
says of 1 John iii. 15, " No murderer hath eternal 
life abiding in him," that, in his view, " the phrase 
' eternal life abiding in him ' is best explained of 
the divine, life-giving power, working now as a 
regulative principle, and as a germ of tlie future 
life." This passage occurs in a chapter in which 



302 LIFE, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

he is arguing that the word "life" may ever\'- 
where be understood in the literal sense of exist- 
ence. Probably he would hold that this is only 
another mode of saying what he had previously 
said about Rom. viii. 6 ; viz., that " life " is put for 
the way or means of life. But, if the term can and 
must here be understood to denote " a regulative 
principle," then it is hard to see why it may not, 
and should not, be so understood in all similar 
cases. And this is substantially the definition 
which we have assumed to be the correct one. 
When, however, Mr. Hudson adds that the term 
may be explained of the divine life-giving power 
" as a germ of the future life," he doubtless uses 
the phrase " future life " in the sense of " future 
existence ; " and therefore it must be asked. What 
can be meant by calling this life-giving power a 
germ of such future existence ? A germ is some- 
thing of the same nature as that which grows from 
it. If this " regulative principle " is any part of 
religious character (and so the author doubtless 
means to be understood), then he can mean noth- 
ing but that holiness is a germ of eternal exist- 
ence; which is nonsensical. His real meaning 
undoubtedly is, that holiness produces a salutary, 
preservative effect on the soul, keeping it from 
decay. But so salt keeps meat from decay ; but 
who would think of saying that salt is the germ of 
the preservation of meat ? The truth seems to be, 
that this expression was selected for the purpose 



INCONSISTENCY OF ANNIHILATIONISTS. S03 

of suggesting that the life which is said to be im- 
parted to believers in Christ is of the same nature 
as the continued existence which is the effect of 
it; whereas, in fact, the two things are (and are 
virtually confessed to be) utterly distinct. There 
is the same confusion of thought here which per- 
vades the whole of Mr. Pettingell's book, — a 
confusion which must exist so long as one at- 
tempts to represent eternal life (in the sense of 
eternal existence) as the outgrowth of the life 
which is introduced by regeneration. If that 
Christian life is a " regulative principle," a renewed 
disposition of the soul, then it can no more be iden- 
tified with abstract existence than the sap of a tree 
can be said to be identical with the existence of 
the tree. But if " life " is always to be taken as 
denoting existence^ then it is as absurd to call the 
spiritual life of the Christian the germ or cause of 
eternal existence as it would be to call the first 
year of a man's life the germ or cause of all the 
remaining years. 

Other passages representing this spiritual life as 
a present reality are John v. 40, vi. 33, 47, 63, xx. 
31 ; Rom. viii. 2 ; 1 Tim. vi. 19 ; 2 Pet. i. 3 ; 1 John 
i. 2 ; besides many others which might be shown to 
imply the same thing. Of those here given, 1 Tim. 
vi. 19, which in our version reads, " That they may 
lay hold on eternal life," should be rendered (ac- 
cording to the correct text), " That they may lay 
hold on the real life," — a very suggestive phrase. 



304 LIFE, -THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

There could be po possible temptation to under 
stand any of them otherwise than as implying that 
the life spoken of is a present condition, were it 
not for the notion that "life" literally means 
"existence," and that somehow, by hook or by 
crook, this literal meaning must be maintained. 
But, when we bear in mind that " existence " is 
not the literal meaning of " life," the whole founda- 
tion of these ingenious expositions crumbles away. 
There is no longer any occasion for them. They 
are brought into service only because a fictitious 
meaning of "life" has been assumed to be the 
literal one; and then, in order to maintain this 
supposed literal meaning, a whole series of figures 
is freely resorted to. 

2. The Christian is sometimes represented, not 
only as now having life, but as now having eteriial 
life. Thus John iii. 36, " He that believeth on the 
Son hath everlasting [eternal] life." John v. 24, 
" He that heareth my word, and believeth on him 
that sent me, hath everlasting life." Similarly 
1 John iii. 15, V. 13 ; John v. 39, vi. 54 ; 1 Tim. vi. 12. 
There are several other passages in which it is 
somewhat doubtful whether only the future, or the 
present with the future, is meant ; e.g., John iii. 16, 
" God . . . gave his only-begotten Son, that who- 
soever believeth in him should not perish, but 
have everlasting life." So in iii. 15, x. 28, xvii. 2 ; 
1 John V. 11 ; Acts xiii. 48. 

3. More commonly, when eternal life is ascribed 



^f^^ 



LIFE AS A FUTURE GOOD. 305 

to the Christian, it is represented as a future ex- 
perience. Matt. xix. 29, " Every one that hath 
forsaken houses," &c., "shall inherit everlasting 
life ; " XXV. 46, " The righteous [shall go away] 
into life eternal." In Rom. ii. 7 it is said that 
God will render " eternal life " to those " who, by 
patient continuance in well-doing, seek for glory 
and honor and immortality." Similarly is the 
phrase used in Matt. xix. 16; Mark x. 17, 30; 
Luke X. 25, xviu. 18, 30 ; John iv. 36, vi. 27, 51, 
58, xii. 25; Rom. vi. 22; Gal. vi. 8; Tit. i. 2, iii. 
7 ; 1 John ii. 25. 

4. Sometimes, more briefly, the future condition 
or experience of the Christian is simply designated 
"life." Thus Mark ix. 43, "It is better for thee 
to enter into life maimed, than, having two hands, 
to go into hell." Matt. xix. 17, "If thou wilt 
enter into life, keep the commandments." 1 Pet. 
iii. 7, " Heirs together of the grace of life." So 
Matt. vii. 14, xviii. 8, 9 ; Mark ix. 45 ; Rom. v. 17, 
18 ; James i. 12. In other cases the present and 
future are both included; or else it is doubtful 
whether the language is to be understood of both, 
or of the future alone. E.g., John v. 40, "Ye 
will not come unto me, that ye might have life." 
Rom. i. 17, " The just shalf live by faith." So 
Luke X. 28; John v. 25, vi. 57, x. 10, xiv. 19; 
Rom. viii. 13, x. 5 ; Heb. xii. 9 ; 2 Tim. i. 1. 

According to the view which we have presented 
of the significance of the term " life " as used in 



306 LIFE, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

the New Testament, there is no difficulty in under- 
standing all these classes of passages. Inasmuch 
as the sanctified state of the Christian is destined 
to be perpetual, it may, with hardly a figure of 
speech, be said of him that he Kas eternal life ; i.e., 
he has that life which is to continue forever. So 
we may speak of a man as having acquired permor 
nent possession of a piece of property ; meaning that 
he already has it, and is sure of keeping it. In 
those passages in which the eternal life is spoken 
of as yet future there is also no difficulty, in so far 
as they simply imply the perpetual continuance of 
the life which has already begun ; and, even where 
simply life is apparently described as something 
wholly future, — something yet to be attained, — 
there is no difficulty in explaining the representa- 
tion. The consummation of this regenerate life is 
still future, and this perfected state may well be 
spoken of as life by way of emphasis. Just so 
the kingdom of God is sometimes described as a 
present thing, but more often as still future. 

It is to be noticed, however, that many of these 
passages represent the future life as a reward 
of well-doing. This may seem to contradict the 
theory that the term denotes a right spiritual 
state begun at regeneration. Can the reward 
of holiness be holiness? The difficulty at the 
worst is no greater on our theory than on that 
which we oppose; but there is no serious diffi- 
culty at all. The life which is ascribed to the 



LIFE BOTH A STATE AND A REWARD. 307 

Christian has a double side. It is not mere happi- 
ness, on the one hand, nor mere holiness on the 
other. It is that in the spiritual nature which 
corresponds to healthful vitality in the physical 
nature. A right state of the system is good in 
itself, and it is a state of enjoyment besides. A 
right state of heart is a good thing in itself ; but 
it is also, in a very true sense, its own reward. 
Holiness cannot but be accompanied by happiness. 
That right spiritual state which the Scriptures call 
life may be viewed sometimes predominantly un- 
der the aspect of a holy state, sometimes predomi- 
nantly under the aspect of a happy state. Hav- 
ing the promise of divine help and fostermg care, 
the Christian is encouraged to regard this condi- 
tion of spiritual purity and joy as a permanent 
one: hence the frequent assurances of eternal 
life held out to him. In precisely the same way 
is the word " peace " used, which we have found 
conjoined with " life " in Rom. viii. 6. In Rom. 
V. 1 we read, " Being justified by faith, we have 
peace with God;" evidently a present experience. 
But, in Rom. ii. 10, the things promised as the 
future reward of the faithful are "glory, honor, 
and peace.^'' The peace spoken of in the latter 
case is well-beuig in general, including what is 
meant in Rom. v. 1, — the more special form of 
well-being ; viz., reconciliation with God. No one 
would think of resorting to prolepsis here, and 
assuming that, when Paul says we have peace, he 



308 LIFE, -THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

means that we are going to have it in the future. 
Not even the diversity in the apparent sense can 
be adduced as making such an* assumption unne- 
cessary : but, if it should be, yet, when Christ says 
(John xiv. 27), " Peace I leave with you," this 
si lift is removed; for here "peace" has substan- 
tially the same meaning as in Rom, ii. 10 ; though 
there it is a future reward, here a present expe- 
rience. 

The annihilationist certainly finds no easier 
work than we in disposing of these last three 
classes of passages. Of course, where eternal life 
is promised as something future, it is easy to sub- 
stitute " existence " for " life," and leave an appro- 
priate sense ; and, where men are said now to pos- 
sess eternal life, he also may say that this means 
only that they have an existence which is to con- 
tinue ; but, when simple life is promised as a 
future good, the case is somewhat different. It 
would certainly be a very singular mode of ex- 
pression to say, " Narrow is the way which leadeth 
unto existence " (Matt. vii. 14) ; or, " They which 
receive abundance of grace and of the gift of right- 
eousness shall reign in existence by one, Jesus 
Christ " (Rom. v. 17). If " life " means a state of 
the soul, it is easy to understand such passages. It 
is put by way of emphasis for the highest and ulti- 
mate form of the religious state. But, if it means 
existence merely, this explanation will not answer. 
When we use " exist " or " existence " emphatically, 



"EXISTENCE" HAS KO PREGNANT SENSE. 309 

it denotes a lower rather than a higher condi- 
tion of the person or thing spoken of. To say that 
a man exists may mean that he merely exists, but 
has nothing worth existing for. Existence is an 
attribute which cannot well be used in a preg- 
nant sense. It has in itself no positive meaning. 
There is no content in the bare conception. Ex- 
istence is, strictly speaking, not an attribute or 
quality at all. When any thing or any being is 
affirmed to exist, all that is definite and positive 
in the assertion is involved in the definition of the 
thing or being of which existence is affirmed. It 
adds nothing to the description of any thing to 
say that it exists. Existence is implied in any 
and every one of the actual qualities of an object ; 
but it is itself an absolutely colorless conception. 
It is impossible, therefore, for such a notion to 
have a pregnant sense. Inasmuch as any real 
attribute presupposes the existence of the thing 
to which it is ascribed, an attempt to use " exist- 
ence " in a pregnant or emphatic sense would no 
more emphasize one attribute than another. 

Nor is any legitimate relief gained by the con- 
cession, that, while "life " primarily denotes exist- 
ence, the notions of holiness and blessedness are 
associated with it (White, "Life in Christ," pp. 
109, 370). This association, says Mr. White, 
arises "from a new relation to God, a spiritual 
resurrection resulting from redemption." But 
this new relation must, of course, be understood 



810 LIFE, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

to result from a new and changed spiritual state. 
Now, the question is, how the word " life " comes 
to be used for this new spiritual state. The man 
existed before regeneration as much as after it. If 
life is properly nothing but existence^ how can the 
word be used to denote a moral condition which 
neither introduces existence, nor modifies the fact 
of existence? A wind blowing from frigid to 
tropic regions becomes warm. It undergoes a 
change of temperature. It sustains a new rela- 
tion to the principle of heat. But who would 
ever dream of saying that with the notion of llow- 
ing there has become associated the notion of 
heat, so that the mere word " blowing " could be 
used to suggest the conception of heat? How 
could it be said that this term " includes the asso- 
ciated idea " of heat ? It is perfectly obvious that 
such a representation would be regarded as sense- 
less, since the mere blowing of the wind no more 
suggests or includes the conception of heat than 
it does the conception of cold, or of lightness, 
or of invisibility, or of density, or of rarity, or of 
liny other quality of the atmosphere. Still less 
could any word denoting properly the mere exist- 
dice of the wind come to include the idea of heat. 
And 3^et this is a fair illustration of what we are 
asked to believe has come to be the case respect- 
ing the word "life." It includes, we are told, 
though primarily signifying mere existence, " the 
associated ideas of holiness and blessedness." 



"EXISTENCE" HAS NO PREGNANT SENSE. 311 

But what is meant by calling these '•''associated 
ideas"? They are no more associated with the 
bare notion of existence than misery and sinful- 
ness are, — no more than weight or color, materi- 
ality or immateriality. All agree that the regen- 
erate are holy and blessed ; not, however, because 
they exist, but because they are regenerate. All 
agree, also, that there is no peace to the wicked ; 
not, however, because they exist, but because they 
are wicked. It would be just as reasonable to say , 
of them that the term life (understood to denote 
existence^ "includes the associated ideas" of sin- 
fulness and misery as it is to say of the righteous 
that the same term " includes the associated ideas 
of holiness and blessedness." ^ 

When we consider that the biblical descriptions 
of the future state and reward of the pious consist 
almost wholly of the simple promise of life, or 
of eternal life, it is easy to see how annihilationists 

1 This is certainly a fair and reasonable reply to Mr. "White's 
position, — much more so than his playful (?) argument (p. 357) 
that "life" can as well be made to mean happy extinction as 
"death" can be matle to mean endless misenj ; the whole point 
of which lies in the false assumption, which we have exposed, 
concerning the radical meaning of the terms life and death. 

"NVe may here also notice the suggestive fact, that sometimes 
Mr. White, in his definition of life as existence, slips in the adjec- 
tive " animate " (p. 370) or " conscious " (pp. 100, ',i57), as involved 
in the radical idea. But this is a virtual abandonment of his 
position. If "life" means "animate existence," or "conscious 
existence," then its opposite, " death," is not " extinction of be- 
ing," as we are told (p. 357), but inanimate existence, or uncori' 
tciovs existence. 



312 LIFE, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

are tempted to regard the notions of holiness and 
blessedness as ifiduded in this term ; though, accord- 
ing to their own definition of life, they are wholly 
debarred from so doing. The more consistent of 
them may say that the mere promise of continued 
existence is enough, and that the blessedness of the 
believer's future is something to be of course taken 
for granted, though not involved in the mere notion 
of life; yet no fair-minded man can read the New 
Testament with this theory of the meaning of 
" life " without an instinctive feeling of astonish- 
ment that such exclusive prominence should be 
given to the bare fact of continued existence, and 
that, too, in those very parts of the New Testa- 
ment in which the tenderest and most impassioned 
descriptions of the Christian's state are given. 

5. We have reserved for separate consideration 
the doctrine of the Old Testament on the point 
before us. It is obvious to every reader that " life " 
and " live " are there much less seldom used in any 
other than the literal sense of physical life than in 
the New Testament; and hardly ever, perhaps 
we may say never, are these terms used distinctly 
of the future life as distinguished from the present. 

Nevertheless, we find many instances of a preg- 
nant use of these terms. Life is often held out as 
the result or reward of piety. In these cases, how- 
ever, it seems to denote predominantly the continu- 
ance of life; and the impression apparently designed 
to be made is, that, by obedience to the divine law, 



■^v. 



"LIFE" IN THE OLD TESTAIVIENT. 313 

men may secure long life upon the earth. This 
use of the simple word " live," in the sense of 
" continue to live," is often found in cases where 
reference is clearly made only to prolongation of 
physical life ; e.g., Jer. xxi. 9, " He that falleth to 
the Chaldees, ... he shall live." So Joseph says 
to his brethren (Gen. xlii. 18), " This do, and live." 
In precisely similar form, but with a more general 
and apparently higher sense, it is said (Prov. iv. 4, 
vii. 2), " Keep my commandments, and live ; " 
Amos V. 4, " Seek ye me, and ye shall live." Sim- 
ilarly Ezek. iii. 21. In the latter passages it may 
indeed be alleged that the reference is to life in 
the spiritual sense ; yet, when we remember that 
this spiritual sense is at the most not frequent in 
the Old Testament, it may well be queried whether 
so sharp a distinction is to be made between the 
two classes of passages. This doubt is confirmed 
when we read, e.g., such a passage as Deut. xxx. 
19, 20. Here God says, " I call heaven and earth 
to record this day against you, that I have set be- 
fore you life and death, blessing and cursing: 
therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed 
may live." So far, all would seem most naturally 
to be explained in the spiritual sense. But we read 
on : " That thou mayest love the Lord thy God, 
and that thou mayest' cleave unto him ; for he [it] 
is thy life, and the length of thy days : that thou 
mayest dwell in the land which the Lord swaro 
unto thy fathers." Here ver. 20 lays stress on 



314 LIFE, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

tlie length of days which the people would spend 
in the promised land if they would love the Lord. 
The offer of life seems, therefore, to be an offer of 
long life, — of long earthly, physical life. Quite 
similarly we read in Deut. xxxii. 47, " For it is not 
a vain thing for you [to obey the law] ; because it 
is your life : and through this thing ye shall prolong 
your days in the land whither ye go over Jordan 
to possess it." 

Somewhat similar are many passages in the 
book of Proverbs. In iii. 2 it is said of the com- 
mandments, " Length of days and long life [liter- 
ally, "years of life "] shall they add unto thee ; " 
while in iii. 22 it is said, respecting wisdom and 
discretion, " So shall they be life unto thy soul." 
Likewise, in iv. 13, we read, " Take fast hold of 
instruction ; let her not go ; keep her, for she is 
thy life : " while in iv. 10 it is said, "Hear, O my 
son, and receive my sayings ; and the years of thy 
life shall be many." So ix. 11, " By me [wisdom] 
thy days shall be multiplied, and the years of thy 
life shall be increased." Thus the promise of life 
as the consequence of right conduct seems to be 
made parallel with the promise of long life ; so that 
the reference is apparently only to the continuance 
of physical existence on the earth. In accordance 
with this view may be interpreted other similar 
expressions : e.g., vi. 23, " Keproofs of instruction 
are the way of life ; " viii. 35, " Whoso findeth 
me [wisdom] findeth life ; " x. 16, " The labor of 



"LIFE" IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 315 

the righteous tendeth to life." Similar language 
is found in ix. 6, xi. 19, xii. 28, xiii. 14, xiv. 27, 
XV. 24, xvi. 22, xxi. 21, xxii. 4. 

In the Psalms " life " is sometimes used in a 
similar manner. Thus xxi. 4, "He asked life of 
thee, and thou gavest it him, even length of days 
for ever and ever." Here life plainly seems to 
mean continuance of life. So xxxiv. 12, "What 
man is he that desireth life, and loveth many days, 
that he may see good ? " In other passages, in 
which life is described as a special boon of the 
righteous, the language is more general : as cxix. 
144, " Give me understanding, and T shall live ; " 
xxxvi. 9, "With thee is the fountain of life; in 
thy light shall we see light ; " cxxxiii. 3, " There 
the Lord commanded the blessing, even life for- 
evermore." 

The question thus presented is this: Is not the 
promise of life which is held out to the obedient 
shown by these passages to be everj'^where, in the 
New Testament as well as in the Old Testament, 
nothing but a promise of the continuance of life ; 
i.e., of existence ? This question has already been 
sufficiently answered, so far, at least, as many 
passages are concerned. Where this life is de- 
scribed as beginning with regeneration, and as a 
peculiar characteristic of Christians on earth, it is 
impossible so to interpret the phrase. But it is in 
point to examine more narrowly the Old-Testament 
conception of life, and to see how far, and in what 
sense, the term has there a pregnant sense. 



316 LIFE, -THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

The general fact seems to be this : There is an 
instinctive love of life manifested by both men 
and brutes. All naturally struggle with the whole 
force of nature against whatever . imperils life. 
Hence the proverb, " Skin for skin ; yea, all that a 
man hath will he give for his life " (Job ii. 4). 
The possession of healthy vitality is a condition 
of the enjoyment of all other good. Death, on the 
other hand, is the culmination of pain and priva- 
tion. Therefore life and death are put summarily 
for all good and all evil. Hence it is said (Deut. 
XXX. 15), " See, I have set before thee this day life 
and good, and -death and evil ; " and a little later 
(ver. 19) the parallel is repeated with a variation 
in the terms used, " I have set before you life and 
death, blessing and cursing." 

In the Old Testament the promise of life as a 
reward of obedience is found predominantly in the 
form of a promise of prosperous and prolonged 
physical life on the earth, and nowhere in, the 
Old Testament is the regenerate state directly 
described as life. We thus see that there is a 
marked difference between the two Testaments. 
In the Old Testament the future life is only rarely 
and somewhat obscurely set forth ; whereas in the 
New it is a conspicuous feature. In the Old Tes- 
tament regeneration — conceived as the beginning 
of a new life, a state of spiritual vitality — hardly 
appears at all : in the New Testament it is a fun- 
damental doctrine. In other words, " life," when 



"LIFE" IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 317 

used in the Old Testament in any other than the 
bare and literal sense, is presented, not as the 
synonyme of holiness, but rather as the consequence 
of holiness. In the New Testament it appears 
under both aspects. Furthermore : in the Old Tes- 
tament there is no sharp distinction between the 
literal and the pregnant sense ; but the one shades 
off into the other, — often almost imperceptibly. 
Life — the state of physical vitality — being the 
condition of all the happiness and blessings which 
men enjoy, that term becomes used compendiously 
for those blessings themselves; so that often it 
appears as essentially synonymous- with " good," 
"peace," "prosperity," " blessing," and other terms 
which denote well-being. And, as life — a state of 
animation — is worth little if short, a rich promise 
must involve an assurance of long life. 

But it was obvious that mere animate existence 
as such, though a condition of enjoyment, did not 
certainly imply it The wicked often enjoyed long 
life and prosperity: the righteous often suffered 
grievously, and died early. Hence we read every- 
where in the Old Testament such complaints as 
these : " Wherefore do the wicked live, become old, 
yea, are mighty in power ? " (Job xxi. 7.) " I was 
envious at the foolish when I saw the prosper- 
ity of the wicked" (Ps. Ixxiii. 3). "Wherefore 
doth the way of the wicked prosper? wherefore 
are all they happy that deal very treacherously?" 
(Jer. xii. 1.) Of himself the Psalmist says, "I 



318 I^IFE, — THE SPIllITUAL SENSE. 

am afflicted and ready to die from my youth up " 
(Ps. Ixxxviii. 15). " My life is spent with grief, 
and my years with sighing" (Ps. xxxi. 10). The 
Books of Job and Ecclesiastes are full of this very 
problem : " What hath the wise more than the 
fool ? " (Eccles. vi. 8.) Such instances of complaint 
could be multiplied. 

Thus it resulted that the notion of life became 
idealized. That which answered to the deeper coh- 
victions respecting what a true and normal life is 
was called life, though actual life often fell far short 
of it. The term " life " thus became symbolic of all 
the prosperity and peace which the heart desired, 
especially of the experience of the divine favor. 
Hence the Psalmist could say, " Thy loving-kind- 
ness is better than life " (Ps. Ixiii. 3). And the 
assurance of God's protecting presence was repre- 
sented as equivalent even to exemption from death ; 
as where it is said (Ps. xvi. 10, 11), " Thou wilt 
not leave my soul to Sheol, neither wilt thou 
suffer thy Holy One to see the pit. Thou wilt show 
me the path of life : in thy presence is fulness of 
joy, at thy right hand there are pleasures forever- 
more." So Ps. xxx. 5, " In his favor is life." And 
repeatedly the Psalmist utters the prayer, " Quicken 
me [make me alive] according to thy word " (cxix. 
25, 154) ; " in thy righteousness " (ver. 40) ; " after 
thy loving-kindness " (vers. 88, 159) ; " according 
to thy judgment " (vers. 149, 156). 

In short, we find in such language the germ of 



"LIFE" IN THE OLD TESTAJMENT. 319 

the conception, more fully developed in the New 
Testament, that the true, ideal life consists in 
fellowship with God. Though the more literal 
sense lingers about the language, the higher sense 
begins to make itself distinctly manifest. When 
it is said (Prov. iii. 18) of wisdom, "She is a tree 
of life to them that lay hold upon her," and that 
" the law of the wise is a fountain of life " (xiii. 
14), and that " the fear of the Lord is a fountain 
of life " (xiv. 27), and that " understanding is a 
well-spring of life " (xvi. 22), something more than 
mere animal life is certainly meant. The same 
must be asserted concerning the other passages in 
the same book, cited on p. 314. The same is true 
of Ezek. xviii. 9, 17, 19, 21, 28 ; xxxiii. 13, 15, 16, 
19, where it is said of the righteous, "He shall 
surely live : he shall not die." 

We are aware that it may be alleged that these 
passages do not represent wisdom (or piety) as 
constituting life, but rather as the source of it ; and 
that the connection often shows that reference is 
made to the continuance of life, so that the anni- 
hilationist's doctrine may seem to be confirmed by 
these declarations. We admit that the New Tes- 
tament doctrine of life is not distinctly found 
here. Piety is represented apparently as the 
source of life, or as the cause of the prolongation 
of life. But the annihilationists of neither school 
can find any support in these passages. If " life " 
here means mere existence, then the materialistic 



320 LIFE,— THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

doctrine, which ^makes the existence of all men 
cease at the death of the body, is overthrown ; for 
these passages, taken literally, and as illustrated 
by actual experience, can at the most mean no 
more than that the righteous shall live a few years 
longer on the earth than the wicked, — a petty 
advantage indeed. Not satisfied with this. Dr. 
Ives undertakes to prove that these promises of 
long life on the earth refer to the new earth 
spoken of in Rev. xxi. 1 (p. 150). He even finds 
such proof in Stephen's statement (Acts vii. 5), 
" And he gave him [Abraham] none inheritance 
in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on ; yet he 
promised that he would give it to him, and to his 
seed after him." Stephen, he says, " here declares 
the promise of Gen. xiii. 17 has not been fulfilled. 
Modern theology claims it has. Whence so radi- 
cal a difference on a question of fact ? " (p. 149.) 
We reply : Moses, referring to the promise made 
by Jehovah to Abraham, said, in his farewell 
speech to the Jews (Deut. i. 8), " Go in and pos- 
sess the land which the Lord sware unto your 
fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give unto 
them, and to their seed after them." No one can 
doubt that this injunction was obeyed when the 
children of Israel under Joshua went over the 
Jordan, and conquered Palestine. If, then, Abra- 
ham has not yet received the promise, then his 
seed came into the possession, not after him, as 
Stephen declares, but before him. We might say 



"LIFE" IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 321 

more; but this is a sufficient reply to an inter- 
pretation wliich is literal only in so far as it is 
convenient so to be. It is only the resort of des- 
peration to claim that reference is had to the 
resurrection as securing the continuation of the 
life interrupted at death. The Old Testament 
says almost nothing about the resurrection. No 
intimation of it can be found in any of these 
passages. 

Nor can the other school of annihilationists 
derive any argument from these passages. They 
admit that the existence of the wicked is not ter- 
minated at death. Yet everywhere, in the pas- 
sages cited, " life " is constantly set over against 
"death." If "life" means merely the continu- 
ance of existence, then "death" must mean the 
cessation of existence. The only escape from the 
dilemma is to make " death " mean, not the first, 
but the second death, -:- a conception and form of 
expression utterly unknown to the Old Testament. 
All difficulty vanishes when we simply assume, 
what can hardly escape any careful reader of the 
Bible, that " life," even where it refers to the eon- 
tinicance of life, does not denote mere existence, 
but a happy existence in fellowship with God, — 
the opposite of . which is death, which consigns 
men to gloomy imprisonment in Sheol, but not to 
non-existence. 



322 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 



CHAPTER XIII. 

DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

DEATH being antithetic to life, it is to be ex- 
pected that whatever figurative use may be 
made of the latter term will be made also of the 
other. In examining the biblical doctrine on this 
point, we make the following observations : — 

1. As life is represented to be the present con- 
dition of the regenerate, so death is described in 
the Bible as the present condition of sinners. 
The spiritual state of the unregenerate is desig- 
nated by a term which is opposite to the one by 
which the state of the regenerate is designated. 
Men are said to be spiritually dead before they 
are physically dead. The- following passages 
illustrate this statement : — 

In Matt. viii. 22, Luke ix. 60, Christ says to the 
man who wished to go and bury his father, " Let 
the dead bury their dead." It is clear that the 
word " dead " in the first instance has a different 
sense from what it has in the second. The com- 
mon and obvious interpretation is, that Christ 
means, "Let those who are religiously lifeless 



DEATH A PRESENT STATE. 323 

bury those who are physically lifeless." It is 
equally obvious that the word is used in the same 
sense in Eph. ii. 1, 5 : " You hath he quickened 
who were dead in [through] trespasses and sins. 
. . . God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love 
wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead 
in [through] sins, hath quickened us [made U3 
alive] together with Christ." So in the parallel 
passage, Col. ii. 13, " You, being dead in [through] 
your sins and the uncircuracision of your flesh, 
hath he quickened [made alive] together with him 
[Christ]." So Rev. iii. 1, "Thou hast a name 
that thou livest, and art dead." Jude 12, " These 
are . . . trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, 
twice dead, plucked up by the roots." Any ordi- 
nary reader would naturally understand these 
phrases to be figurative designations of the ab- 
sence of religious vitality. Even Dr. Ives (pp. 
21, 22) admits that in the first two passages and 
1 Tim. V. 6 the word " dead " is used figuratively, 
though he does not define in what sense he under- 
stands it to be used. 

But Mr. White, appealing to Gen. xx. 3, Exod. 
xii. 33, 2 Sam. xix. 28 (see p. 265), attempts to 
transfer the figure from the word to the ten%e 
(p. 281) ; that is, he holds that men are called dead 
proleptically, the present tense being put for the 
future. But, in the first place, such an interpreta- 
tion, even if possible, is exceedingly forced. The 
passages referred to for proof are not parallel. 



824 DEATH, — THE SPHIITUAL SENSE. 

When this figure of prolepsis is used, the connec- 
tion always makes it obvious that it is used. 
Where the figure consists only in putting one 
tense for another, the whole force of it is lost if 
there is any doubt respecting it. When the 
Egyptians, in their fright over the death of the 
first-born, are said to have exclaimed, " We be all 
dead men ! " it is perfectly obvious from the con- 
nection that this is only an emphatic mode of 
expressing the imminent danger of death. But 
when Paul says, "You who were dead hath he 
made alive," there is certainly nothing obviously 
requiring the assumption of such a figure: on 
the contrary, no one would think of such an 
explanation, unless driven to it by the exigencies 
of a theory. Moreover, life and death are here 
confessedly antithetic. If, as Mr. White assumes, 
"dead" means "certain to die," then "alive" 
must mean " certain to live." But the Christians 
were already alive in the literal (physical) sense. 
The theory must, therefore, take " alive " to mean 
" certain to live forever." Furthermore, " dead " 
cannot, on this theory, refer to literal (physical) 
death : it must be made to mean " certain to be 
finally exterminated." At the best, therefore, the 
literal sense of " dead," to maintain which the 
theory of prolepsis is resorted to, has to be aban- 
doned after all. The controversy is reduced to 
the qtiestion, whether we shall a&sume one tropical 
meaning with the prolepsis added, or another 



NO PROLEPSIS ALLOWABLE. 325 

tropical meaning with the prolepsis omitted. But 
this is not all. We must add, in the second place, 
that Mr. White's explanation is in some cases 
impossible. Thus, in Col. ii. 13, the Christians 
are not only said to have been dead, but to have 
been already made alive. But how has Christ 
made them alive ? Paul answers, " Having for- 
given you all trespasses." Previously, also, the 
readers are described as those who '-'•have re- 
ceived'"'' Christ Jesus the Lord (ver. 6), as being 
already " complete in him " (ver. 10), " buried 
with him," and "risen with him." In fact, 
throughout the chapter, Paul is describing the 
past and present condition of the readers. The 
phrases " dead " and " made alive " are inter- 
woven with the others in such a way as absolutely 
to exclude any attempt to single them out from 
all the rest as being proleptic references to the 
future. 

The correctness of our interpretation of these 
passages is further illustrated by the similar one, 
1 Tim. V. 6 : " She that liveth in pleasure is dead 
while she liveth." Here the death and life are 
made simultaneous. They cannot be antithetic in 
the same sense as above, where the life succeeds 
and replaces the death. Here obviously "liveth" 
\:-> to be understood literally. It is as obvious that 
^•dead" cannot be understood literally. But if 
we resort to the theory of prolepsis, as Mr. White 
does, we not only, as before, fail to save the liter- 



326 DEATH, -THE SPHIITUAL SENSE. 

alness of the death, but we also obliterate the fine 
force of the apostle's paradox. If " dead " means 
merely " certain to die," then the addition, " while 
she is living," instead of having any rhetorical 
force, becomes a vapid superfluity. Of course the 
danger or certainty of dying could come only 
while she was living. 

This same spiritual sense belongs to the word 
"death" as used in John v. 24, 25: "He that 
heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent 
me, . . . is passed from death unto life. Verily, 
verily, I say unto you. The hour is coming, and 
now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the 
Son of God ; and they that hear shall live." ^ So 
in the parallel passage, 1 John iii. 14 : " We know 
that we have passed from death unto life, because 
we love the brethren. He that loveth not his 
brother ahideth in deatlir It would be almost 
impossible more strongly to describe death as a 
present condition of the unregenerate than is done 

1 The phrase " now is " shows conclusively that ver. 25 does 
not refer to the final resurrection. Even Dr. Ives admits this. 
But how does he explain the statement? "In that passing 
hour," he says, "some, but not all, of the sleeping dead heard 
that voice of power that from among them called back to life 
Lazarus, and the widow's son of Nain, and Jairus's daughter" 
(p. 156). But the previous verse refutes this: there Christ repre- 
sents the life which follows death to be the result of hearing his 
loord, and believing on Him that sent him. This is manifestly not 
the resurrection. Accordingly, when he goes on to say that the 
hour now is Avhen the dead shall hear his voice, and they that hear 
shall live, it is obvious that he has the same thing in mind. Of 
course the class specified in the latter clause ia not identical with 



BIBLICAL DEFINITION OF DEATH. 327 

in these passages. When a man believes, he is 
said to pass from death unto life. If he refuses 
to believe, and continues in the indulgence of 
wickedness, he "abideth in death." When we 
consider how frequently John describes the Chris- 
tian state as a state of life, this form of expres- 
sion, in itself almost perfectly incapable of being 
twisted into meaning any thing else than that the 
death spoken of is a present reality, cannot but 
be understood to assert that the man who hates 
his brother, so long as he continues in that frame 
of mind, is in a state which is called death. 

Paul likewise describes this death as a present 
condition when he says, "To be carnally-minded 
is death " (Rom. viii. 6). This is a definition of 
spiritual death. According to Paul, it is not ex- 
termination, but it is carnal-mindedness. It is the 
opposite of "life," which, in the same verse, is de- 
scribed as synonymous with having a spiritual 
mind. 

the one denoted by the other. Christ means to say the dead 
siiall hear his voice, and those of the dead who hear (i.e., who 
give heed) shall live. If he meant that all who hear shall live, 
lie would simply have said, " The dead shall hear his voice, and 
shall live." Dr. Ives's effort to make this verse also refer to the 
first resurrection (Rev. xx. 5), at which some of the dead, but 
not all, shall be awakened to life, is too contrary to the plain 
language of the verse to be entertained for a moment. Not only 
does this contradict the assertion involved in the phrase "now 
is," but it cannot be reconciled with ver. 28, where the resurrec- 
tion is spoken of. It would make Christ virtually say, " Marvel 
not. that I shall raise the dead; for the hour is coming when I 
shall raise all the dead " I 



328 DEATH, -THE SPHIITUAL SENSE. 

The same conception is involved in Eph. v. 14 : 
"Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the 
dead, and Christ shall give thee light." Here two 
figures are employed ; but, as death is often called 
a sleep, the two blend into one, and we simply 
find the state of spiritual inertness called death. 
The meaning is none the less clear for the fact 
that the form of expression is somewhat more rhe- 
torical* than the others. Here, as in Eph. ii. 5, Col. 
ii. 13, the beginning of the new life is pictured in 
language suggested by the doctrine of the resur- 
rection. It is difficult to conjecture by what exe- 
getical legerdemain the obvious meaning of this 
passage can be explained away. 

2. More frequently, however, when " death " is 
used as a designation* of the sinner's state, it has 
reference to his future or ultimate state. That the 
spiritual condition which precedes regeneration 
should be called " death " less frequently than the 
regenerate state itself is called " life " is just what 
might be expected when we consider the figurative 
and literal meaning of these terms. In so far as 
regeneration is called life, it is compared with the 
beginning of the natural life. Now, this natural 
life is not preceded by physical death ; but the life 
is an absolute beginning. Accordingly, it is not a 
necessary consequence of that figurative designa- 
tion of the regenerate state that the unregenerate 
state should be called death ; though, as we have 
seen, it is often so called. But, as physical death 



DEATH AS A FUTURE STATE. 329 

is the climax and culmination of phj^sical evils, the 
term " death " is very naturally used in a figurative 
way to denote the consummate ruin of spiritual 
health. As we have already remarked, however, 
in relation to the double use of " life," so we may 
say of the antithetic term, that there is no incon- 
sistency in designating, by one and the same word, 
a wicked state of the heart, and the evil which is 
to be visited upon the wicked person. Spiritual 
deadness and ruin in the future life will be both 
the continuation and the retribution of a sinful 
character on the earth. Hence we may distinguish 
two aspects under which death, as a future condi- 
tion, is presented. 

a. Death is sometimes described as the natural 
result of wicked conduct. In this aspect the ulti- 
mate state is the consummation of the present state. 
Thus James says (i. 15), " Sin, when it is finished, 
bringeth forth death." Here death is called the 
product of sin, — its natural result. So Paul 
(Rom. vi. 16) and John (1 John v. 16, 17) speak 
of sin as being "unto death," — a phrase implying 
that death is that to which sin tends. In Rom. vii. 
5, likewise, "the motions of sins" are said to 
"work in our members to bring forth fruit unto 
death;" and in ver. 13 sin is said to "work a 
death." In 2 Cor. vii. 10 it is said that " the sor- 
row of the world worketh death." In these cases 
the figure is derived from physical death as pro- 
duced by the natural operation of physical causes. 



3G0 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

h. But death, in the literal sense, has another 
meaning. It is not merely the natural result of 
natural causes : it is often a violent infliction ; it is 
a penalty visited upon a culprit. Hence, in the 
spiritual sense, death is sometimes represented as 
a retribution. This notion is involved in Paul's 
language, Rom. vi. 23 : " The wages of sin is death." 
It is found also in Ezek. xviii. 4, 20 : " The soul 
that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear 
the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father 
bear the iniquity of the son." It is found (whether 
in the literal or the figurative sense of death we 
will not now try to determine) in Gen. ii. 17 : " In 
the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely 
die." 

In other passages the form of expression does 
not so clearly decide whether death is represented 
as the natural result, or as the punitive retribution, 
of sin. E.g., John viii. 21, 24, " Ye shall die in your 
sins. ... If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall 
die in your sins." Rom. vi. 21, " The end of those 
things is death ; " viii. 2, " The law of the spirit of 
life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the 
law of sin and death." Jas. v. 20, "He which 
converteth a sinner from the error of his ways 
shall save a soul from death." 

It is a very significant fact that the same term 
should be used in this twofold sense. While it is 
impossible to evade the conclusion that the doom 
of the sinner is described in the Bible as a positive 



Sm ITS OWN PUNISHMENT. 331 

punishment, divinely inflicted, and therefore as 
something more than the mere result naturally fol- 
lowing from the commission of sin, yet the use of 
the word "death" — the same word which also 
describes the sinful state — to designate that doom, 
and the fact that when used of the future state it 
is often so used as to convey the impression that 
it is a natural result of sin, — this is of great im- 
portance, as indicating, that, according to the Bible, 
sin is, to a great extent at least, its own punish- 
ment. In the Old Testament the same words 
which are commonly rendered " sin " (Jihattath^ 
hhataah^ &c.) and "iniquity" (^avori) also some- 
times denote the punishment of sin. E.g., Zech. 
xiv. 19, " This shall be the punishment \lihattatli] 
of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that 
come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles." 
Gen. iv. 13, "My punishment \^avdn] is greater 
than I can bear." Moreover, sin is directly called 
its own avenger. E.g., Num. xxxii. 23, " Be sure 
your sin will find you out." Ps. xl. 12, "Innu- 
merable evils have compassed me about: mine 
iniquities have taken hold of me " (more exactly, 
" have overtaken me "). Cf. Ps. xxxviii. 4. Some- 
what the same conception is involved when the 
sinner is described as enslaved to sin (John viii. 
34 ; Rom. vi. 6, 17, vii. 14). Sin is a tyrant, ex- 
acting hard service. 

When death, as the punishment of sin, is set 
forth in the Bible, it is more often described by the 



832 DEATH,— THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

use of other synonymous terms, especially "de- 
struction," "perish," &c. Sinners are said to be 
" punished with everlasting destruction " (2 Thess. 
i. 9), and to be " reserved unto fire against the 
day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men " 
(2 Pet. iii. 7). There is, however, no radical dif- 
ference in the thing so described and that described 
by the term "death." Even this destruction is 
sometimes spoken of as if it were merely the nat- 
ural result, rather than the supernatural retribu- 
tion, of a wicked life. E.g., Matt. vii. 13, " Broad 
is the way that leadeth to destruction." Luke ix. 
25, " What is a man advantaged if he gain the 
whole world, and lose [destroy] himself^'' On 
the other hand it is pictured as a divine infliction, 
coming even as a " sudden " (1 Thess. v. 3) and 
" swift " (2 Pet. ii. 1) destruction. It is also 
represented as a being cast into consuming fire 
(Matt. xiii. 42, xxv. 41; Mark ix. 43; Rev. xx. 
15). 

This latter form of description is sometimes re- 
garded as showing that punitive death is extermi- 
nation of being. But it is fatal to this argument 
that " destruction," so far from being limited in its 
meaning to the specific notion of the final doom 
of sinners as divinely inflicted, is also described 
(as above observed) as a self-inflicted evil, and 
(what is still more significant) as a condition pre- 
ceding even physical death. The English version 
often obscures this fact. Thus, in Luke xix. 10, 



DESTRUCTION AS A PRESENT THING. 333 

Christ says, " The Son of man is come to seek 
and to save that which was lost " {apololos^ the per- 
fect participle of the verb, elsewhere commonly 
rendered, when transitive, " destroy," and, when 
intransitive, " perish "). Here sinners are declared 
to be destroyed in this life. But it is a destruc- 
tion winch is not only not actual extermination, 
but is not even a state which is certain to lead to 
extermination; for Christ says that he came to 
save them. In another form the same idea appears 
in 1 Cor. i. 18, where Paul saj^s, "The preaching 
of the cross is to them that perish foolishness." 
Here the present passive participle of the same 
verb (^apollumi) is used ; and a more exact render- 
ing would be, " to them that are being destroyed." 
The opposite class are in like manner described 
as those who are " being saved." The same an- 
tithesis appears in 2 Cor. ii. 15 : " We are unto 
God a sweet savor of Christ in them that are 
being saved, and in them that are being destroyed." 
So again in 2 Cor. iv. 3, " If our gospel be liid, it 
is hid to [among] them that are lost [being de- 
stroyed]." Also in 2 Thess. ii. 10, " With all de- 
ceivableness of unrighteousness in them that per- 
ish [are being destroyed]." According to these 
representations, destruction, in the spiritual sense, 
is not merely something confined to the future 
world, and there to be suddenly and finally in- 
flicted: it is also a state or process characterizing 
the impenitent man throughout his life. 



834 DEATH, -THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

3. It is fitting at this point, in connection with 
the topic of death considered as a divine and posi- 
tive infliction, to make some observations on the 
subject of the natural mortality of man. Anni- 
hilationists of every school lay it down as a funda- 
mental and all-important point in their argument, 
that neither reason nor the Bible shows that the 
soul is inherently immortal ; that, on the contrary, 
man is described in the Scriptures as being natu- 
rally perishable, like the brute. They attach great 
importance to this point, as reversing what has 
commonly been regarded as the presumption in 
the case. Now, it will have been noticed that we 
have waged no discussion on this question. We 
have made no affirmation that either the Bible or 
reason establishes the doctrine of the essential 
indestructibility of the soul. But we have a right 
to hold the advocates of the opposite doctrine to 
a somewhat rigid accountability as to their own 
doctrine in this matter ; for they always make this 
a fundamental point in their reasonings. What, 
then, do they hold ? Dr. Ives, and those of his 
school, of course, hold that the soul not only is 
mortal, but actually becomes extinct when the body 
dies, being in fact identical with the body. Others 
hold that the soul survives the death of the body. 
But these, again, are not agreed in their statements. 
According to some, the soul is miraculously pre- 
served in existence, though naturally inclined to 
become extinct at the death of the body. Accord- 



NATURAL MORTALITY : MR. HUDSON'S VIEW. 335 

iiig to others, the soiil has a sort of inherent vital- 
ity; which enables it to continue a long time, tliough 
sin may at last reduce it to nonentity. This 
seems to be Mr. Hudson's view when he says 
("Christ Our Life," p. 76), "Who knows that 
sin, separating the creature from the Fountain of 
Life, may not be either a process of, or reason for, 
a proper death ? " He seems, however, to have had 
no well-defined or positive opinion. A "process 
of " death is a very different thing from a " reason 
for " death. In his " Debt and Grace " (p. 242), 
in reference to the question, " whether the soul is 
naturally mortal or immortal," he says that " it 
may be difficult to answer " it " if nature be abso- 
lutely distinguished from three other things, — mir- 
acle, judgment, and grace." He goes on to say, 
however, that, " as man was created for immortal- 
ity, so that his endless life should come about in 
the proper course of things, it was as natural as 
it was proper ; and death may be regarded as un- 
natural, because judgment overrules nature. Yet, 
if the forfeited boon is recovered both by special 
power and as a special favor, we ought not so to 
speak of man as naturally immortal as to overlook 
the important fact of the redemption : and it will 
be better to say that man was made for immortal- 
ity ; or, with the early Christians, that his nature 
is intermediate ; or, better still, that he is immor- 
tal by grace." His real opinion, so far as we can 
gather it from these wavering statements, seems 



336 DEATH,— THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

to be, that, if man had remained holy, he would, 
"in the proper course of things," — i.e., naturally, 
— have continued in existence. The death of the 
sinner is a "judgment "which " overrules nature." 
Yet this comes at the conclusion of a chapter 
devoted to a review and refutation of the several 
arguments from reason for the immortality of the 
soul. If, now, the doom of extinction is one which 
" overrules nature," then this implies the natural 
immortality of the soul as distinctly as any one 
need care to affirm it. No intelligent man, nowa- 
days at least, would think of denying God's power 
to annihilate the human soul. If sin is a sufficient 
" reason for " such extinction, and if the Bible af- 
firms that it is really inflicted, this does not mili- 
tate against any reasonable doctrine of the soul's 
natural immortality. 

Mr. White's doctrine is somewhat different. He 
denies (p. 117) that man is naturally immortal in 
any sense. He holds (p. 100) that man was 
" placed on probation in order to become " immor- 
tal. " The prospect of 'living forever ' by the help 
of the ' tree of life ' was open to him upon the con- 
dition of obedience." Just what would have hap- 
pened if Adam had obeyed, and yet had not eaten 
of the tree of life, does not appear. Still the exclu- 
sion of Adam from all access to the tree is under- 
stood to be a direct act of divine power, put forth 
in order that, " having chosen the creature rather 
than the Creator, he should not possess that im- 



MR. WHITE ON NATURAL MORTALITY. 337 

mortal life, which, under the divine will, access 
to the tree of life would have sealed to him in 
obedience" (^Ihid.'). The threat, "In the day that 
thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die " (Gen. 
ii. 17), Mr. White says, must have meant, and 
must by Adam have been understood to mean, 
"immediate destruction" (p. 102). The subse- 
quent prolongation of his life was due to the fact 
that " the action of redemption began at once to 
unfold itself" (p. 116). 

Now, in reference to all this, it is obvious to 
remark, that, since holiness is undoubtedly the 
normal and natural condition of man, — considered 
as first created in the image of God, — and sinful- 
ness an abnormal and unnatural development of 
human character, it is strange indeed that a natural 
and normal action of the will of man should have 
counteracted a natural tendency to death ; in other 
words, that the natural mortality of the soul should 
be attained only by an unnatural action of the 
soul. This is made all the stranger when we are 
told, that, even after the sin, the threatened death 
was not inflicted. The threatened death, it is 
maintained, must have meant immediate and total 
destruction, because Adam, from his observation 
of animate nature, could have had no other idea of 
it (p. 102). Yet this death, we are told, was sus- 
pended on account of the action of a redemption, 
of which, so far as we know, no communication 
was made to Adam. If, then, Adam could under- 



838 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

stand death to mean but one thing, — viz., total 
extermination, — and yet found that the threat of 
immediate death was not executed, what other 
conclusion could he draw than that God had told 
a lie, and the serpent had told the truth ? 

Mr. Pettingell involves himself in a similar 
dilemma. " We contend," he says, " that men, by 
nature, are mortal and transitory; that death, 
since the fall, is a natural process ; and that im- 
mortality and eternal life are only offered them in 
the gospel" (p. 34). "Reason, nature, and Scrip- 
ture all unite in declaring that our life is a condi- 
tional life ; that we must obey God if we would 
live ; that we must preserve our normal state (or 
be restored to it), or, like every thing else in 
nature, come to certain ruin ; that purity and 
blessedness are necessary, in the very nature of 
things, to perpetuity of existence; that there is 
something in the nature of sin, which, like disease 
or corroding leprosy, . . . will inevitably (unless 
eradicated) work the utter ruin of the soul into 
which it has entered" (p. 71). What is meant, 
now, by saying that death is the natural lot of 
men ? We are told, that, " since the fall^'' it is 
natural ; the implication being, that, except for the 
fall, it would not have been natural for the soul to 
come to an end. This conclusion is confirmed 
when extermination is represented as resulting 
from something in the " nature of s^?^," which, as 
being a sort of " disease^^' " works the utter ruin of 



MR. PETTINGELL ON NATURAL MORTALITY. 339 

the soul." If it is sin that effects this ruin, then 
it is to be supposed, that, if sinless, men would 
naturally continue in existence perpetually. In 
short, the normal and natural destiny of man, 
according to Mr. Pettingell himself, is immortality. 
What, then, does he mean, when he says that we 
must preserve our normal state, or, " like every 
thing else in nature^ come to certain ruin " ? Is it 
meant that every thing in nature is in an abnormal 
state ? If not, if brutes and trees come to an end, 
notwithstanding that they preserve their normal 
state, then what is the point of this comparison ? 
But this is not all. Mr. Pettingell teaches (p. 
118), that, when man loses his spiritual life, " there 
remains to him only the soul and the body ; and 
these he has in common with the lower animals." 
Accordingly, the unregenerate sinner dies like the 
brute. If he continues in existence after life is 
departed, this is only " a lingering moribund vital- 
ity, such as a limb of a tree has after it is severed 
from the source of its life, or as the animal body 
exhibits after the vital spark has fled " (p. 120). 
And yet Mr. Pettingell holds that this- " moribund 
vitality " is continued indefinitely by an exercise 
of divine power ; that the soul is finally united to 
a new body at the resurrection ; that the person is 
capable of, and receives, severe pain in the future 
state; and that, in consequence of this, he ulti- 
mately undergoes a ''''.second death," which is 
extinction (pp. 120, 144). Thus all this grand sub- 



340 DEATH, -THE SPHIITUAL SENSE. 

structure for his argument, consisting in the doc- 
trine of the natural mortality of the soul, comes to 
nothing. The first death, which is asserted to be 
like that of trees and brutes, is utterly unlike it, 
since it not only leaves a "moribund vitality" 
which continues for thousands of years, but, in 
order to the accomplishment of its proper end 
(annihilation), has to be supplemented by a second 
death ; which comes, moreover, by no process of 
nature, nor, as he elsewhere affirms, by the natural 
working of sin, but by a supernatural infliction of 
divine power ! 

This is bad enough ; but it is not the worst. On 
p. 122 he discusses the question, "What would 
have been the fortunes of the human race had 
there been no sin, and no loss of spiritual life ? " 
And his answer is thus indicated : "By what 
means were they [Adam and Eve] to rise to that 
higher celestial life, that ' life and immortality ' that 
are brought to light in the gospel ? May we not 
inquire whether they could have been qualified 
for this but by a knowledge of good and evil; 
whether they could have risen to that life above 
without first having gone down to death through 
the sad experience of sin?" Truly, this passes 
comprehension. "Purity," we are told, "is the 
soul's normal condition," and its " preservation is 
absolutely essential to eternal life " (p. 91) ; and 
yet the loss of this purity, the " sad experience of 
sin," is also essential to the attainment of " that 



DR. IVES ON NATURAL MORTALITY. 341 

higher celestial life"! It is the author of such 
absurdities and self-contradictions, who, in his 
most charitable mood towards orthodox Christians, 
feels compelled to groan out, " Oh their logic ! " 
(p. 75.) 

Dr. Ives has a similar, yet not the same, concep- 
tion of this matter. According to him, man was 
created essentially perishable, like the brute, but 
with the offer of endless existence, to be obtained 
by obedience. When Adam sinned, however, he 
was sent out of Paradise in order "to take from 
him the power to thwart that sentence of death by 
a continuous eating of the tree of life " (p. 128). 
It would appear from this that Adam would have 
secured immortality by continuing to eat of the 
tree of life, if he could only have got at it, not- 
withstanding his disobedience, and notwithstand- 
ing the divine threat. That is, while we are 
expressly told that eternal life had been held out 
to Adam as the "reward of ohedience^^^ it is now 
afl&rmed that an act of (disobedience would have 
secured the same reward, if Adam had only not 
been by force made unable to commit the act of 
disobedience ! If Adam had eaten of the tree con- 
tinuously, he would have " thwarted " the divine 
sentence of death! That is, the tree had more 
power than the omnipotent God himself! God 
could not put Adam to death so long as he kept 
eating of the tree of life ! This is the inevitable 
inference from Dr. Ives's statement above quoted. 



342 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

If God could have put Adam to death, even though 
he had contmued to eat of the tree, then such eat- 
ing would not have '■'■ thtvarted the sentence of 
death." Although, however, this tree was able, if 
used, to annul a divine decree, and defy divine 
omnipotence, yet, fortunately, God was able to 
keep Adam from obtaining access to the tree ; and 
so he managed to fulfil his threat. Threat, we say ; 
and yet at this point we are informed, that, in 
the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the garden, 
"the infinite mercy of the Almighty thus mani- 
fested itself, keeping the tree of life from the 
sinning, to whom endless existence were an endless 
curse" (p. 137). So, then, it seems that death 
was threatened as the penalty of disobedience; 
but, as soon as this penalty was incurred by actual 
disobedience, the sentence is executed, not as an 
act of punishment, but as an act of mercy ! From 
all this we gather that Adam would not have been 
immortal, even if obedient, unless he had eaten of 
the tree of life ; and inasmuch as, notwithstanding 
his disobedience, he lived more than nine hundred 
years, it would seem that the threat of immediate 
death was, after all, nothing but a threat. But 
this is not all. If the soul of man was naturally 
mortal, then the mortality did not result from the 
sin. Yet, in the first and principal affirmation on 
the subject of man's mortality in the primitive 
history of man (Gen. ii. 17), it is implied that the 
death was to be, not a natural experience, but a 



MEANING OF GEN. III. 22. 343 

supernatural infliction conditioned on sin. And 
the only statement concerning immortality is 
found in Gen. iii. 22 ; where, however, immortality 
is not promised as a blessing conditioned on obedi- 
ence, but is indirectly spoken of as a boon which 
might be secured even without obedience. Ac- 
cording to the doctrine of conditional immortality, 
which. Dr. Ives says, appears as the fundamental 
truth of revelation at the very outset (p. 126), in- 
stead of the tlireat of death to be visited upon 
disobedience (a death which would come at any 
rate, unless supernaturally averted), there should 
rather have been a promise of life as the reward of 
obedience ; but there is nothing of the sort.^ 

With all the crudities and inconsistencies which 
are intermingled with Dr. Ives's discussion of this 
theme, he is yet more true to his fundamental doc- 

1 If it is asked what the statements concerning the threatened 
death of Adam and the effect of eating of the tree of life (Gen. 
ii. 17; iii. 22) do mean, we reply, that, while some degree of ob- 
scurity must always rest upon them, the most reasonable view is 
this: From the name, " tree of life," it cannot be inferred that 
immortality would result from eating the fruit, any more than 
from the name of the other tree, the " tree of knowledge of good 
and evil," it could be inferred that its fruit had the power of 
magically conferring intelligence. In the latter case the narra- 
tive itself clearly shows that it was not the eatinfj as such, but 
the disobedience in eating, which produced the knowledge. It is 
only the indirect allusion to immortality in iii. 22, as attainable 
by eating of the other tree, that gives any suggestion that the 
fruit of it had the peculiar property of conferring immortality. 
But the analogy of the tree of knowledge makes it most probable 
that both trees had a /njmboUc or sacramental object. They stood 
as outward signa of the promise and warning addressed to Adam 



344 DEATH, -THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

trine of the essential perishableness of man than 
the others. In his. view, immortality for the first 
pair could only be secured by eating a certain 
fruit ; while for other men a resurrection from the 
dead, effected by divine power, is necessary. Mr. 
White, however, while theoretically insisting that 
men naturally pass into non-existence, like the 
brutes, 3''et practically holds to the opposite doc- 
trine, that the human soul has an inherent ten- 
dency to persistence. For it makes no real differ- 
ence whether the post-mortem existence of the 
soul is due (as he affirms, p. 96) to God's work in 
Christ's redemption, or to God's sovereign power 
exercised in any other way. That any thing con- 
tinues to exist at all is due ultimately to the sus- 
taining power of G-od ; yet we none the less think 
and speak of some things as having a stronger 

and Eve. Whether, in case of obedience, they would have en- 
joyed physical immortality (which is not very probable), or 
would (as is more probable) have undergone some kind of physi- 
cal transformation, the narrative does not tell us. But, when 
they sinned, it was necessary to remove them from that tree 
which had been to them the visible symbol of the divine promise 
and favor. As they might naturally be inclined to grasp at the 
mere symbol, as if the eating of the fruit could actually confer 
only what it was designed to symbolize, it was necessary to the 
complete execution of the divine threat that they should be kept 
from all access to it. Those who press the phraseology of the 
verse to a literal interpretation, and insist that the fruit had the 
property of conferring immortality even in spite of the disobedi- 
ence, are logically bound to be as gross in their literalism in 
interpreting the first i)art of the verse, and understand that as 
afiBlrming that the act of disobedience had literally transformed 
Adam and Eve into a state of divinity. 



J 



INCONSISTENCY OF ANNIHILATIONISTS. 345 

inherent durability than others. The hard granite 
rock continues unchanged for centuries : the soap- 
bubble gleams but for a few moments. We simply 
infer from the fact of persistence the inherent 
quality of persistence. That the soul does con- 
tinue in existence indefinitely must, according to 
all analogy, be taken as a proof that God, in mak- 
ing it, endowed it with the quality of persistence. 
This seems all the more reasonable on Mr. White's 
theory, inasmuch as he holds that the wicked are 
all destroyed together after the final judgment: 
that is, those who will then but just have closed 
their physical life will be (or, at least, begin to be) 
exterminated at the same time with those who 
have been passing a miserable existence in Hades 
for thousands or millions of years. The end, when 
it does come, is not a natural dissolution of the 
elements of the soul, but a positive and punitive 
infliction. This is utterly inconsistent with any 
rational doctrine of the soul's natural mortality. 
The doctrine that the soul, like the body, has, by 
natural constitution, its youth, its maturity, and its 
decay ; or the doctrine that sin has a wasting effect 
on the soul, issuing in its gradual and ultimate ex- 
tinction, — either of these doctrines might reason- 
ably be believed on philosophical grounds, and the 
first can be consistently maintained by one who 
argues that the human soul is inherently perish- 
able. But he who holds that no soul is extermi- 
nated except by a direct and punitive infliction of 



346 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

divine power virtually implies that the tendency 
of the soul is to continue indefinitely, or even 
eternally, in existence. 

As for Mr. Hudson, he is hardly consistent with 
himself. After having said that " death [as he is 
here speaking of the soul especially, he must refer 
to the final extinction of the soul] may be re- 
garded as unnatural, because judgment overrules 
nature " (" Debt and Grace," p. 242), he says, in 
treating of the resurrection of unbelievers, that 
" it is hard to believe that they are raised up by a 
miracle that ends in their destruction, or that ac- 
complishes nothing but a judgment, which, in this 
view, must appear simply vindictive " (p. 263). 
Hence he concludes that perhaps the souls of de- 
ceased unbelievers are kept in existence by the 
influence of such truths as their souls have heard, 
though not accepted; so that, "for judgment, it is 
as if the unjust, hearing the voice of God in the 
last call to life, should be putting on a glorious in- 
corruption, and should perish in the act" (p. 264). 
The most charitable comment to make on this is, 
that it is the desperate conjecture of one whose 
good sense and refined feeling revolt from the 
logical result of his own theory. That in spite of 
the scores of passages referred to by himself, in 
which the final destruction of men is described as 
inflicted by an act of divine retribution, he should 
describe it as nothing but an expiring struggle on 
the part of the unsanctified soul after a purer and 



NATURAL MORTALITY NOT PROVED. 347 

nobler form of existence, and that this, neverthe- 
less, should be called the "judgment" which 
"overrules nature," is something simply marvel- 
lous. 

The point to which we have been tending is 
this : The argunient for the doctrine of conditional 
immortality, made so prominent by all its advo- 
cates,. — viz., that man is naturally mortal, — is 
not consistently held by any one, not even by the 
thorough-going materialists. The fact that both 
men and brutes are designated by the same term 
nephesh hhayyah (living soul, living creature, &c.), 
if it proves any thing to the point, proves that the 
first death puts an absolute end to the soul, or 
even that men have no higher spiritual nature 
than the brute. But, so long as one admits that 
the soul survives the death of the body, he therein 
asserts a radical distinction between the nature of 
man and that of the brutes. He may hold that 
the soul is miraculously preserved in existence; 
but this is a mere theory, invented to save consist- 
ency, and without any support in reason or reve- 
lation. He may hold that the soul, though not 
dying with the body, yet has its natural growth, 
maturity, and decline ; or at least that sin has 
brought the soul into a perishable state, so that it 
will gradually come to nought. But these are 
mere speculations, . From the analogy of brute life 
no argument can be drawn at all, unless the soul 
dies with the body. From the analogy of physical 



348 DEATH, -THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

life no argument can be drawn ; for there is no 
known analogy between a bodily organism and a 
disembodied spirit as to this matter of natural 
maturity and decay. No argument can be drawn 
even from the destructive effect of sin upon the 
soul; for there is no evidence that sin has any 
tendency to annihilate personal existence. In 
short, whoever rejects the materialistic doctrine, 
that men, like the brutes, become absolutely and 
finally extinct at death, has no proof of the essen- 
tial mortality of the human soul except the merest 
conjecture, unless that proof is found in positive 
biblical statements that human existence is termi- 
nated by natural law. And this evidence from the 
Bible cannot be found. For on the assumption 
that the soul survives the death of the body, even 
if the destruction threatened against sinners is 
annihilation, it is yet something denounced as a 
positive and penal infliction. It is visited upon all 
men at the same time, however great the difference 
in the age of the sinning souls: it is therefore 
clearly something which does not result from the 
natural constitution of the soul, nor even from the 
natural effect of sin upon it. 

4. Having disposed of this presumptive argu- 
ment, of which so much is made, we are brought 
back to- the simple exegetical question, whether 
the threatened death is absolute extermination of 
being. The chief argument advanced in proof of 
the affirmative is, that the very word " death," in 



THE LITERAL SENSE OF "DEATH." 349 

its literal and obvious sense, means the termina- 
tion of existence. To this we reply : — 

a. The same term, as we have abundantly 
shown, is used concerning the spiritual condition 
of men before the firdt death. If, as used of the 
future state, it denotes extinction of being, then it. 
is used in two radically distinct senses in describing 
the sinner's condition in relation to God. This 
being the case, all argument derived from the 
alleged uniform literal sense of the word is over- 
thrown. 

h. But this assmnption concerning the literal 
sense of "death" is, as we have shown, utterly 
erroneous. In the literal sense the word denotes 
the loss of vitality. It is true, that, in the case of 
the physical organism, this loss of vitality is fol- 
lowed by the decay and destruction of the organ- 
ism; but the two conceptions are, nevertheless, 
distinct. 

c. If, however, it is argued, that as the death of 
the body is followed by the dissolution of the 
bodily organism, so the death of the soul must be 
followed by the extinction of the soul's existence, 
we reply : It is, at the best, a tropical use of lan- 
guage to apply the terms " life " and " death " to 
the soul considered as distinct from the body. 
The soul is not a physical organism, and there- 
fore cannot be called vital in the literal sense ; for 
it is 07dy of physical organisms that life in the literal 
sense can be predicated. The organism, as an or- 



350 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

ganism, falls into decay and extinction because 
deprived of the vital principle. But the soul, as 
mere soul, is not an organism possessed of a vital 
principle, the loss of which causes the soul gradu- 
ally to fall to pieces. It is only when " life " is 
Assumed to be synonymous with " existence " that 
there is any plausibility in this analogy. And 
even then there is none ; for it would be the height 
of absurdity to say that the soul (considered as an 
organism), after being deprived of its existence, 
passes gradually into non-existence. So, then, we 
must come back to the notion of vitality. But 
the vitality of the soul, if we may use such a 
phrase at all, is a figurative vitality. There is, 
therefore, not the least reason to assume, that, as a 
matter of course, the loss of this figurative vitality 
must be followed by literal extinction, as is the 
case with the body. But all this is, after all, aside 
from the real point. Even if it should be admit- 
ted that the soul, like the body, is a sort of organ- 
ism, kept in operation by a sort of vital principle 
of its own, distinct from that of the body, still the 
argument of our opponents amounts to notliing; 
for, — 

d. Those with whom we are debating do not 
hold that the soul, as distinct from the body, is to 
undergo the second death. Dr. Ives and those of 
his school do not believe that there is any such 
soul. According to them, the second death, like 
the first, is the extinction of a physical organism, 



LITERAL DEATH IS OF THE BODY ONLY. 351 

and nothing else. The foregoing remarks are, 
therefore, not especially applicable to them. They 
are consistent in adhering to one uniform under- 
standing of death, as being the dissolution of a 
bodily form. Our reply to them has been given 
in the former part of this book, in the proof that 
the soul, accordmg to the Bible, is something 
distinct from the body, and survives the death of 
the body. Mr. White, however, and those of his 
school, though they believe in an intermediate 
state of disembodied souls, yet hold, that, before 
the final death, the soul is to be invested with 
another body. Since, then, according to them, 
the first death only destroys the body, and leaves 
the spirit still existent and active, and since they 
insist that the second death is generically like the 
first, they are logically bound to assume that the 
second death is the death only of the second hody^ 
leaving the spirit still intact. To put the matter 
in another form, — 

e. Mr. White destroys the foundation of his 
own argument by a radical inconsistency in his 
definition of death. He attempts to prove the 
total extinction of personal being at the second 
death by insisting on the proposition that the 
literal sense of death is extermination of existence ; 
yet he holds that the first death, which is certain- 
ly a literal death if there is any, is not a total 
extinction of being, but that, on the contrary, the 
conscious spirit survives the death of the body ! 



352 DEATH, — THE SPHUTUAL SENSE. 

It is just here that his book is fatally weak. On 
p. 95 he argues, that, according to the Bible, the 
body " forms an essential element of man's nature ; 
and, apart from its destined union with that or- 
ganism, the animating spirit is not spoken of as 
the veritable humanity." Again he says (p. 97), 
" The true idea of death is the breaking up of the 
human integer. When the complex man is dissolved, 
he is dead, no matter what may become of the 
component elements of his being." " The dissolu- 
tion of the integer," he says again (p. 98), "is its 
destruction." Thus he attempts to make death 
mean as much as possible in the way of extinction 
of being; yet, when he comes (p. 295 seq.} to 
discuss Mr. Constable's doctrine, that the first 
death is a complete annihilation of existence, he 
combats it, although apparently feeling that his 
main argument would be strengthened if he could 
conscientiously adopt it. Still he says, "I am 
compelled by the Scriptures to retain the persua- 
sion of the survival of ' souls ' in death " (p. 309). 
And although he has previously represented this 
disembodied state as a sadly defective one, as not 
a state of " veritable humanity," yet it is this very 
disembodied state which (p. 307) he understands 
Paul to be speaking of when he expresses a desire 
to depart and be with Christ (Phil. i. 23) ; so that, 
whether a state of veritable humanity or not, Paul 
looked upon it as preferable to the present cor- 
poreal state. 



ALLEGED SUSPENSION OF LITERAL DEATH. 353 

Nor is the self-contradiction here involved ma- 
terially relieved by his theory, that, except for 
Christ's resurrection, there would not be even a 
temporary survival of souls (p. 96). This doc- 
trine he applies to the wicked as well as to the 
good. In reference to all men he says, " If any 
element survive in the first death, it must be at- 
tributed to the supernatural action of redemption 
alone, which operates to the abnormal preservation 
of the spiritual essence in the dissolution of the 
man, both for judgment and reward" (p. 309). 
We do not find that he quotes any Scripture in 
proof of this proposition, except 1 Cor. xv. 17, 18 
(pp. 96, 297) ; but this, as we have already (p. 183) 
shown, does not at all prove it. Even according to 
his own principle of interpretation, it can be made 
to prove no more than that Christians are kept in 
existence by the redemption. Something may in- 
deed be said in favor of the proposition that the 
resurrection of men is connected with that of 
Christ ; but that " the Hades state is, for good and 
bad, one of the miraculous results of a new proba- 
tion " effected by Christ's resurrection (p. 96), is 
a doctrine for which it is impossible to find a single 
proof-text. 

But, even if it were proved, nothing is gained as 
regards the definition of death ; for this survival of 
the soul is assumed to have been effected for all 
men, of all races and all ages. In short, according 
to Mr. White, all the death which men have ever 



354 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

experienced has been this partial death only^ — the 
death of the body. It avails nothing, therefore, to 
assume, that, without Christ, physical death would 
have been entire extinction of being. It confess- 
edly never has been such extinction ; and conse- 
quently, wherever the Bible speaks of death in the 
literal sense, it must have reference, not to that 
extinction which might have constituted it except 
for Christ's redemption, but to the actual death 
which does not by any means involve annihilation, 
but rather leaves the most essential element of 
humanity intact. This, morever, is just what men 
in general, even with no knowledge of Christ, have 
assumed death to be. Accordingly, in Mr. White's 
system, literal death is something which no man 
has ever yet experienced: his literal death is a 
purely hypothetical death. 

Yet, when he comes to define the penal death 
finally inflicted on sinners, he insists that this 
death means literal extinction of the soul, — the 
end of conscious existence. No different phrase- 
ology is used here from what is used in reference to 
physical death. This final death is nowhere even 
called eternal death. Yet it is held here to denote 
the extinction of the whole being; though the 
physical death, which is certainly literal death, 
involves only the dissolution and destruction of 
the body. Not to insist on what has been already 
abundantly shown, — that life does not primarily 
denote existence^ nor death the end of existence^ — 



THE FIRST AND THE SECOISTD DEATH.. 355 

even on Mr. White's own ground he is involved 
in an inextricable self-contradiction. To prove 
that the wicked are finally annihilated, he appeals 
to the literal sense of "death," as meaning the 
destruction of conscious existence ; and then, when 
he is obliged to confess that the Scriptures repre- 
sent death in the ordinary and primary sense to 
be not the destruction of conscious existence, he 
satisfies himself with the doctrine (not taught 
in the Bible) that death has been miraculously 
kept from being literal ! 

Obviously nothing can serve Mr. White's pur- 
pose but some biblical proof that the second death, 
so far from being the same as the first, is radically 
different from it. But the Bible nowhere speaks 
of the first death as being miraculously kept from 
being what it naturally ought to be ; nor does it 
make that distinction between partial and total 
extermination which the exigencies of Mr. White's 
theory requires. The death which is the final 
doom of the sinner is called simply death, and the 
other synonymous terms used are used equally of 
the physical and the penal death. While it is 
said that Christ came in order that men might not 
perish (John iii. 15), — i.e., in the penal sense, — it 
is also said that Zachm^i^ perished between the altar 
and the temple (Luke xi. 51). The same verb 
(apollumi^ is used of physical death frequently : as 
Matt. ii. 13, xii. 14 ; Mark iv. 38, ix. 22 ; Luke xiii. 
83, &c. While we are warned against the broad 



356 . DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

way that leadeth to destruction (apoleia^ Matt. vii. 
13), we are informed that it was not the manner 
of the Romans to deliver any man to die (literally, 
to destruction^ eis apoleian, Acts xxv. 16).^ 

Mr. White lays great stress on an argument de- 
rived from Plato's " Phsedo," where Socrates is rep- 
resented as endeavoring to prove the immortality 
of the soul in reply to the doubts of some of his 
disciples. He gives (p. 362, seq.') a number of 
quotations from the dialogue, prefaced by the 
remark concerning the terms used, "They are 
precisely the terms generally chosen in the New 
Testament to denote the punishment of the wicked; 
with this difference, that Plato says the soul will 

1 One passage, indeed, there is, which may seem to assert the 
extinction of the soul as distinguished from the body; viz., Matt. 
X. 28, " Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill 
the soul : but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and 
body in hell." Not to insist that a doctrine has a precarious foot- 
ing which rests on a single passage, it is sufficient to say that even 
this passage falls far short of asserting the extermination of the 
soul. To derive this doctrine from it is to assume that death (or 
destruction) literally and strictly means extermination, — an 
assumption which has been abundantly shown to be without 
foundation. Even the killing of the body is not identical with 
putting an end to its existence. What the destroying of the soul 
may be must be inferred from other representations of Scrip- 
ture. How little, at the best, can be fairly argued from the pas- 
sage before us, may be seen by comparing the parallel passage 
(Luke xii. 4, 5), where, after saying, " Be not afraid of them that 
kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do," our 
Saviour adds, " Fear him which, after he hath killed, hath power 
to cast into hell . " B oth this passage and the other , taken strictly, 
imply that the body which is killed is afterwards cast into hell, 
— an absurd representation, if the killing means annihilation, 
and one which nobody can adopt. 



1MR. WHITE'S ARGUMENT FROM PLATO. 357 

not suffer thanatos [death], apoleia, olethros [de- 
struction], j^^Aora [corruption] ; that it is not des- 
tined to apolesthai^ hata])htheiresthai^ dlaphtheires- 
thai^ apothneskein [to be destroyed, to perish, die] : 
while the New-Testament writers declare that 
wicked men shall suffer what is denoted by these 
terms " (p. 361). Mr. White intimates (p. 366), 
that, unless these words in the New Testament 
denote the annihilation of conscious personality, 
the Greek world would have had " to learn a new 
Greek language before it could understand the 
apostles." But the argument is by no means so 
cogent as he seems to esteem it ; for, 

(1) In the " Phsedo," the whole point of the dis- 
cussion relates to the question, whether the soul, 
as distinct and separated from the hody^ retains its 
faculties and existence. No one need deny, that, 
when the question is thus stated, the conception 
of the annihilation of conscious existence might ap- 
propriately be expressed by the terms above cited, 
especially when the question is discussed, as it is 
in the " Phsedo," from a purely metaphysical^ and 
not a morale point of view. But the Bible does not 
so present the subject. Mr. White's own language, 
above quoted, suggests the difference : " Plato says 
the soul will not suffer death ; . . . while the New- 
Testament writers declare that wicked men shall 
suffer what is denoted by these terms." Moreover, 
Phito goes farther than to use the phrases quoted 
by Mr. White. The conclusion of Cebes' query 



358 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

(the first part of which is given in Mr. White's first 
quotation) reads thus : " But much persuasion and 
many arguments are required in order to prove, 
that, when inan is dead, the soul yet exists, and 
has any force or intelligence " (Jowett's " Plato," 2d 
ed., vol. i. p. 443). Again: the destruction of the 
soul is described as a being " dissolved like smoke 
or air" (^Ibid.'). And Simmias says, "That after 
death the soul will continue to exist [eti estai] 
is not yet proven even to my own satisfaction. I 
cannot get rid of the feeling of the many to which 
Cebes was referring, — the feeling, that, when the 
man dies, the soul may be scattered, and that this 
may be the end of her " (pp. 452, 453). No such 
language can be found in the Bible concerning 
the soul. One might indeed quote Rom. vi. 21, 
" The end of those things is death." But here 
evidently "end" means final result or issue; for 
we read in the next verse, "Ye have your fruit 
unto holiness, and the end everlasting life." This 
is certainly not annihilation. The same is clearly 
the case respecting the similar passage (Phil. iii. 
19), " Whose end is destruction." The word " end " 
does not define " destruction : " it is simply raid 
that the destiny of bad men at the close of this 
probation is to be destroyed. What the destruc- 
tion is must be elsewhere learned. 

(2) Inasmuch as the Bible speaks of the penal 
or spiritual death as the destruction of the man as 
a whole, while at the same time the first (physical) 






TV 

MR. WHITE'S DEFINltWOjr OF ♦^DE^TROY." 359 




death is described in tlie same manner, it follows 
(as already indicated) that Mr. White's argument 
from Plato, if it proves any thing, proves too much : 
it proves the annihilation of the whole man at the 
first death, and he is logically bound to take the 
ground advocated by Mr. Constable and those of 
the materialistic school. 

In connection with Mr. Whitens argument de- 
rived from the definition of death, we may briefly 
notice his definition of apollumi^ the Greek word 
rendered "destroy." He says it means "thor- 
oughly to break up the existence of any thing as 
an organic unity ; in the case of living things, to 
destroy their life " (p. 367). Not to speak of the 
looseness involved in speaking of the organic unity 
of morganic things, we must remark that the defi- 
nition seems (though doubtless unconsciously) to 
have grown out of the writer's own desire to prove 
his point. Thus, to mention only one instance of 
the use of apollumi : it is used in Matt. ix. 17, 
Mark ii. 22, Luke v. 37, with reference to the 
bursting of leather bottles ; in the second instance 
it is rendered " be marred ; " in the others, " per- 
ish." Any thing may be said to be destroyed 
which is so injured as not to serve its proper end. 
Would Mr. White say, that, when a rent in the 
leather bottle has made it unable to hold wine, its 
" existence " has been " broken up " ? There is, 
therefore, absolutely nothing in the biblical use of 
apollumi in the literal sense to warrant us in sup- 



360 DEATH, -THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

posing, that, when applied to the human spirit, it 
denotes any thing more than such a perversion of 
its faculties, such a ruin of its purity and peace, as 
renders the spirit incapable of fulfilling its proper 
end. The case is made still stronger when we 
add, that a frequent meaning of apoUumi is " lose ; " 
as, e.g., when a sheep (Luke xv. 4) or a piece of 
money (Luke xv. 8) is said to be lost: so that 
apollumi^ when applied to the soul, may denote 
most prominently its separation from God, — an 
" everlasting destruction [olethros^ from the same 
root as apollumi] from the presence of the Lord " 
(2 Thess. i. 9). 

Mr. White makes prominent, as an argument 
for his doctrine of death, that the death of Christ, 
which was endured in order to save us from death, 
was literal death; and that, therefore, the death 
from which we ar6 delivered must be literal 
death also. " The death of the Lord Jesus being 
placed in opposition to the impending death of 
man, it cannot be supposed that the same term 
has diverse significations in the two cases" (p. 
242). But the literal death (so called) from 
which men are delivered by Christ is, according 
to him, utter and final extermination of being. Did 
Christ suffer this ? What does Mr. White say to 
this objection ? He says, " The objection would 
be valid if the Saviour had been simply human. 
If Jesus had been the son of David only, he 
could not legally have risen from the dead : . . . 



J 



ARGUMENT FROM THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 361 

he must have suffered everlasting destruction; 
his human spirit must have passed away forever. 
. . . But the Saviour was divine. As man, iden- 
tified with human nature, he died, and his death 
became a sin-offering: as God he could not die. 
... And therefore, when the curse had taken 
effect upon the manhood^ it was still open to the 
Divine Inhabitant, absorbing the Spirit into his 
own essence, to restore the ' destroyed temple ' 
from its ruins, and, taking possession of it in vir- 
tue of his divinity (not legally as a man), 'to 
raise it up on the third day.' He arose, therefore, 
as the Divine Conqueror of death, ' God over all, 
blessed for evermore,' . . . not in the image of 
the ' son of Adam,' but as the ' Son of the High- 
est ; ' having delivered us from wrath by the 
death of his humanity, to endow us with immor- 
tality through the life of his divinity " (pp. 243, 
244). 

The foregoing seems plainly to affirm that the 
atonement consisted in Christ's dying only as a 
man. In fact, to quote another passage, Mr. 
White directly asserts, "The curse of the law 
which Christ bore was, as to its essence, and apart 
from the accidents of suffering which led to it, 
literal death, — a dissolution of his being as a man, 
a curse which took no account of the subsequent 
destiny of the component elements of his nature " 
(p. 241). Again : " The fact that Christ bore this 
death [literal dissolution], laid down his life as a 



362 DEATH, -THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

man, shed his hlood for our redemption without 
suffering in hell beyond, is proof that death in the 
Bible signifies the dissolution of humanity, and 
that life signifies literal life; since it was not 
merely his 'happiness,' much less his 'holiness,' 
which the Saviour 'laid down for his sheep,' but 
his life as a man''' (p. 242). It is somewhat sur- 
1 rising, after reading such language, to find him 
saying, "There is but one way open, say these 
God-taught men [the apostles], that sinners, death- 
doomed, may obtain life eternal. ' No innocent 
creature must suffer, however willing. God him- 
self must suffer, in one exceptional sacrifice, if sin- 
ners are to be saved, and the stability of the 
divine government within itself, and over other 
minds, is to be preserved. . . . All the language 
of Scripture respecting this sacrifice is based upon 
this idea of God^s sacrificing and suffering for us 
as man" (pp. 254, 255). 

Comparing now these different declarations, we 
learn respecting Christ, that " as God he could not 
die^' while yet God himself suffered. We learn 
that the death from which we are redeemed by 
Christ is literal death; i.e., as is assumed, anni- 
hilation, complete and final, of personal existence. 
That which redeems us is also literal death: in 
fact, because it is this literal death, the death le 
nounced against sinners is inferred to be the same. 
Yet, in order that sinners may be saved, "God 
himself must suffer," though he cannot die! 



WHEREIN CONSISTED THE ATONEMENT? 363 

What does all this mean ? Is the essential thing 
in redemption the death of the Son of man, or the 
Buffering of the Deity himself? If the punish- 
ment threatened to impenitent sinners is extermi- 
nation, because Christ died to save us, why may 
we not as well assume that the threatened punish- 
ment is merely suffering, because, to save us, God 
had to suffer, but could not die? To this Mr. 
White replies, the sinner is to be visited with 
both suffering and extermination, the one preced- 
ing the other (p. 377). This suffering, moreover, 
he admits, may be mental as well as physical (p. 
355). But this gives us little relief. Why must 
the sufferings we merit be borne by God, while 
the death we merit must be experienced by a man ? 
The atonement, he says, must not be regarded as 
the "substitution of an innocent sufferer, a man 
who had 'done nothing amiss' " (p. 252). There- 
fore God must suffer. So that the atonement is 
" not a blow falling on an innocent creature out- 
side the Godhead; it is a blow falling from the 
sinful creature on the Godhead itself" (p. 255). 
Mr. White here appends an excursus in defence of 
the doctrine that "God as a being" is capable c f 
suffering, and does suffer. The blow falls on the 
Godhead, " on that sensitive divine nature which 
is extended through infinity " (p. 255) ; so that, 
though he speaks of God's suffering for us " as 
man," yet he plainly means that the Godhead, as 
such, suffers. But the death of Christ cannot be 



364 DEATH, -THE SPHIITUAL SENSE. 

the death of God. Hence, in speaking of this, 
Mr. White is careful to say that he died " as man." 
But was not, then, this the death of a creature^ 
and an " innocent creature " ? The humanity of 
Christ is surely not conceived as uncreated, co- 
eternal with God's divinity: if it were, it could 
not be said that the Word became flesh. So, then, 
it would seem, (1) that, while an innocent creature 
must not suffer instead of the guilty, an innocent 
Creator may and must so suffer; and (2) that, 
while an innocent creature must not suffer instead 
of the guilty, an innocent creature may properly 
die instead of the guilty ! 

But the strangest thing is yet to be noticed. 
Death, literally, we are told, means extermination. 
Jesus died literally: therefore the death we are 
saved from is extermination. But was Jesus 
really exterminated? and is the literal (physi- 
cal) death of men really extermination ? Oh, no ! 
neither the one nor the other is real extermina- 
tion. But, then, Christ's death would have heen 
extermination if he had not been divine as well as 
human ; and our physical death would he extermi- 
nation, if his death had heen extermination ! So, 
then, the argument is this : Because literal death 
means extermination, though no literal death ever 
yet has been ' extermination, therefore Christ's 
death, which was literal death, yet not real exter- 
mination, was designed (being experienced on our 
behalf) to save us from real extermination, because 



CHRIST'S DEATH NOT EXTERMINATION. 365 

the death threatened against us and the death suf- 
fered by him must be of the same kind! The 
parallel of such an argument as this we might 
search far without finding. 

We will not stop to discuss the question, less 
pertinent to our main object, whether Mr. White 
takes scriptural ground respecting Christ's hu- 
manity and God's passibility. On the latter point 
we are inclined to agree with him. But just be- 
cause the atonement, however mysterious in itself, 
and impossible to be described with philosophic 
precision, is thus invested with an awful grandeur, 
as consisting chiefly in a sacrifice which somehow 
touched the very Godhead himself, it all the more 
seems almost like solemn trifling to conceive that 
a prominent and essential feature of the atonement 
consisted in a three-days' interruption of the hu- 
manity of the God-man, which brief interruption 
of one mere human existence was sufficient to 
serve as a substitute for the absolute annihilation 
of all the sinners of all ages! Mr. White has 
himself furnished the refutation of his own theory. 
Hardly a more infelicitous argument could have 
been hit upon for his doctrine of conditional im- 
mortality than this argument derived from the 
death of Christ. 

Still, it may be said, stress is laid in the Scrip- 
tures upon the death of Christ as securing our 
life ; and this death was certainly not the loss of 
happiness or holiness; so that our death, thua 



866 DEATH,— THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

averted, cannot be the mere loss of happiness or 
holiness. True, Christ did not lose his holiness; 
and yet Paul says that he was " made to be sin 
for us" (2 Cor. v. 21), — a very suggestive phrase, 
especially as considered in connection with the 
fact that Christ is declared to have come, not 
merely to deliver men from death or from punish- 
ment, but "from their sins " (Matt. i. 21). When 
it is said, however, that " it was not merely his 
happiness ... which the Saviour laid down," — if 
Mr. White means, as he seems to mean, that the 
Saviour's atonement in no sense consisted in his 
laying down his happiness, — then this is in opposi- 
tion to very many biblical testimonies ; notably the 
exclamation on the cross, " My God, my God, why 
hast thou forsaken me ? " (Matt, xxvii. 46.) If, 
however, he simply means that the word " death," 
as describing the atoning work of Christ, can have 
reference to his physical death alone, then we can 
only reply that such a literalism betrays an utter 
inability to apprehend the biblical mode of speech. 
Of course " death," in the literal sense, denotes the 
termination of physical life, and the destruction 
of the physical organism ; and, undoubtedly, just 
this was involved in the death of Christ (except 
that, in his case, not even the physical organism 
went to decay). But even the primeval threat of 
death to Adam (Gen. ii. 17) — however true it may 
be that physical death, in the literal sense, was 
included — was at once shown, by the manner of 



PREGNANT SENSE OF "DEATH." 367 

the execution of the threat, to involve much more, 
— the infliction of pain and suffering, wearisome 
toil, expulsion from the delightsome garden, and 
above all, and in all, the consciousness of the 
divine displeasure. In short, as the infliction of 
physical death is commonly regarded as the capital 
punishment, — the acme of penalty which can he 
visited by men upon offenders against society, — 
death thus becomes a natural and appropriate 
symbol of the severest punitive evil. He who 
cannot apprehend the force of such language may 
as well insist, that, because Christ speaks (John 
iii. 5) of men as being "born of water," bap- 
tism produces real regeneration; or that, when 
Moses said to the Jews, " Circumcise the foreskin 
of your heart " (Deut. x. 16), and Stephen com- 
plained that they were " uncircumcised in heart 
and ears " (Acts vii. 51), we are to understand 
that it was the divine will that the physical opera- 
tion of circumcision should be performed on the 
heart and ears. 

To sum up the results arrived at up to the pres- 
ent point : There is no proof of the doctrine of 
annihilation from the natural mortality of man, 
for there is no proof that man is naturally mortal ; 
while the fact that the second death, even if it be 
annihilation, is represented as a positive infliction, 
indicates that the soul naturally tends to continue 
indefinitely in existence. There is no proof of the 
doctrine of annihilation from the literal meaning 



368 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

of " death," " destruction," &c. ; for these words 
do not literally denote the termination of human 
existence. There is no proof from the Bible that 
human existence comes to an end at the second 
death: no expression of this sort anywhere oc- 
curs : the alleged proof is derived from the use of 
terms which are also used of the first death, and 
which, therefore, if they prove any thing, prove a 
douhle extermination for every unsaved sinner. 
There is no proof that there is such a double ex- 
termination, except that derived from the false 
assumption concerning the literal meaning of 
" death," &c. ; and the alleged proof is overwhelm- 
ingly refuted by the positive evidence from the 
Bible that the human spirit exists after the death 
of the body. On the other hand, there is proof, 
that, as death can literally be predicated only of a 
physical organism, it is figuratively used when 
applied to the human spirit and its experiences. 
There is proof that it is so applied to the spiritual 
condition of sinners preceding the physical death ; 
in this case the notion of extermination is abso- 
lutely excluded, and a strong presumption is 
created that the same phraseology, when used of 
the same class of men in the future world, has the 
same or a similar figurative sense. 

In this state of the case it is manifest that any 
biblical indication that the second death does not 
put an end to human existence is sufficient to 
settle the question in dispute. The presumption 



PENAL DEATH NOT EXTERMINATION. 369 

is, that this death does not denote annihilation. 
A very slight amount of positive testimony raises 
the presumption into a certainty. To this proof 
we now address ourselves. 

5. The passages which go directly to show that 
the death which is the wages of sin is not extermi- 
iialim may be divided into two classes. 

a. There are passages in which the words " die " 
and "death" are so used that they cannot be 
understood to have the literal sense. We refer 
especially to those which affirm that believers in 
Christ shall never die. 

We begin with John xi. 25, 26 : " Jesus said 
unto her, I am the resurrection and the life : he 
that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet 
shall he live ; and whosoever liveth and believeth 
in me shall never die." If " die " here has its 
literal sense, tten it is affirmed that believers shall 
not die at all, — not even the first death; but no 
one so understands the passage. Such language 
is especially troublesome to the materialists, to 
whom death is always and everywhere literal ex- 
termination of being. Accordingly, Dr. Ives finds 
it necessary to explain away the obvious meaning 
of this declaration. He says, " As it stands, here 
is an inexcusable ambiguity : our Lord fails to 
discriminate between the first and the second 
death, as in speech he passes from one to the 
other ; or else it is a clear indorsement, as far as 
believers are concerned, of that original lie of the 



370 DEATH,— THE SPmiTUAL SENSE. 

Evil One, if believers now living are never to die, — 
if they themselves live on while their bodies die. 
On the latter understanding, it were indeed a 
strong point for modern theology if our Lord said 
it. But did he ? We appeal from our translators 
to the original. The Greek is, ou me apothane (two 
negatives more emphatic) — he shall by no means 
die — eis ton aiona — for the aeon, age, for eter- 
nity^ as is the meaning the word often carries. . . . 
Christ's language could not have been more pre- 
cise. He says not, the believer is never to die, — 
he does die as other men ; but he tells us he dies 
not the second death, the death forever of those 
who have not life through Christ" (pp. 233, 234). 
This exposition is preceded by an intimation that 
the translators of our Bible were dishonest. " We 
cannot but believe," he says, "those good men 
thought it their duty, in giving the word of God 
to the common people, to make the English Bible 
at least teach those doctrines they thought it 
ought." And the passage above quoted is given 
as an illustration of this sarcastic sneer. 

Let us, then, examine Dr. Ives's exposition. 
The phrase, eis ton aiona, or variations of it, — such 
as eis tous aionas ton aidnon, &c., — occurs in the 
New Testament more than sixty times. When 
used without a negative particle, they are com- 
monly rendered " forever," " for ever and ever," 
&c. No one doubts the general correctness of this 
translation ; but the question now is, 'how they 



DR. IVES ON JOHN XI. 26. 371 

should be translated when connected with a nega- 
tive. We will adduce all the instances: there 
axe only eleven. In Matt. xxi. 19 Christ says to 
the fig-tree, " Let no fruit grow on thee hencefor- 
ward forever." It is obvious that this means that 
fruit was never more to grow on the tree. Dr. 
Ives's exegesis would make it read, " Let no fruit 
grow on thee for eternity^^ with the implication, 
that, for the present, it might continue to grow. 
Not a bad curse, surely. The parallel passage 
(Mark xi. 14) reads, "No man eat fruit of thee 
hereafter forever;" and the same remarks apply 
to this as to that. The negation is, of course, uni- 
versal, covering not the future life only (which 
would, of course, be involved in the case of a fig- 
tree), but especially the present. In Mark iii. 29 
we read, " He that blasphemeth against the Holy 
Ghost hath never forgiveness." Dr. Ives's exposi- 
tion would make this mean that the blasphemer is 
not forgiven /or eternity^ — i.e., in the future life, — 
but is forgiven in the present life ! Unfortunately 
for this interpretation, however, it is said in Matt, 
xii. 32, "Whosoever speaketh against the Holy 
Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in 
this world, neither in the world to come." In 
John xiii. 8, Peter says to Christ, " Thou shalt 
never wash my feet." The phrase here rendered 
" never," be it remembered, is precisely the same 
as the one in xi. 26. Dr. Ives, therefore, to make 
out his case against King James's version, must 



372 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

understand Peter to mean, " Thou slialt not wash 
my feet /or eternity^'' — i.e., in the future world, — 
"but mayest wash them at present"! In 1 Cor. 
viii. 13 Paul says, " If meat make my brother to 
offend, I will eat no flesh while the world stand- 
eth" (m ton aidna, — the same phrase again). It 
is hard to see how the weak brother would be 
helped if Paul meant only that he would not 
eternally eat flesh, though he might keep on eat- 
ing it for the present. Yet this is what Dr. Ives's 
exposition of the Greek phraseology drives us to. 
There is one passage in which the same phrase 
does have the sense of a partial negation; viz., 
John viii. 35: "The servant abideth not in the 
house forever, but the Son abideth ever." But 
this is the only instance ; and here the antithesis 
suggests the limitation. But even this is no exact 
parallel for Dr. Ives's translation of xi. 26 : for, if 
it were, he would have to make that read, " Who- 
soever believeth in me shall not die forever ; " i.e., 
be forever dying. 

The remaining passages are the following : John 
viii. 51, " If a man keep my saying, he shall never 
see death." John viii. 52, " He shall never taste 
of death." John x. 28, " I give unto them eternal 
life, and they shall never perish." John iv. 14, 
"Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall 
give him shall never thirst." These passages are 
similar in general import to the one (xi. 26) under 
consideration ; and, of course, whatever conclusion 



DR. IVES ON JOHN XI. 26. 373 

is arrived at respecting this applies equally to 
those. These, therefore, cannot be adduced in 
evidence against us. Dr. Ives refers to one of 
these (viii. 51) as another instance of mistransla- 
tion. It is manifest, however, that the more am- 
biguous instances of the phrase in question (if 
there are any) must be interpreted according to 
the unambiguous ones. Of these we find that in 
five cases the phrase undoubtedly means " never " 
in the absolute sense. In one case it means " not 
always." The prevalent usage decides in favor of 
the universal, as distinguished from the partial, 
negation. We may add, that no Greek scholar 
worthy of the name ever dreamed of understand- 
ing the phrase in question in the foregoing pas- 
sages otherwise than by " never." Dr. Ives, we 
presume, does not profess to know more about 
the original Greek than all the doctors that 
have devoted themselves to the study of the New 
Testament. He himself, in the five passages first 
examined, would not dare to translate the phrase 
as he does in John xi. 26. What judgment, then, 
shall be formed of his exegesis of this passage, but 
that it is the desperate resort of one who cannot 
otherwise save his own theory? or else that it is 
the heedless and hasty conjecture of a man who 
jumped at an apparent possibility of rendering 
the phrase so as to make it harmonize with his 
doctrine of death? Whatever explanation, chari- 
table or severe, may be made, it is certain that 



374 DEATH, -THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

Dr. Ives's interpretation of John xi. 26 would 
have been more gracefully prefaced with something 
else than a charge of dishonesty brought against 
the translators of our Bible for not having antici- 
pated him in his display of philological and exe- 
getical ignorance. 

That " never " is the proper word in the above 
passage is further illustrated by parallel expres- 
sions. E.g., John vi. 51, " If any eat of this bread 
he shall live forever ; " and vi. 58, " This is that 
bread which came down from heaven : not as your 
fathers did eat manna, and are dead : he that eateth 
of this bread shall live forever.'' According to 
Dr. Ives's doctrine of death, these statements are 
false ; for he holds that, no one lives forever, but, 
rather, that all men die : so that their life, at the 
best, suffers a long interruption. The latter pas- 
sage is peculiarly instructive. The literal and the 
figurative senses of death are used in the closest 
conjunction, just as in Matt. viii. 22 and John xi. 
26, yet so that no one need mistake the distinction. 
Dr. Ives refers to it on p. 129 in order to make a 
point against the figurative sense of death. He 
a^ks whether Christ means that those who eat of 
tills bread "shall be happy forever;" and adds, 
" Then it should read, ' Your fathers did eat manna, 
and are unhappy ' ! " His argument is certainly 
very unhappy; for (1) if what is said about both 
classes of persons is to be understood with equal 
literalness, then it follows, that, as the manna was 



DR. IVES ON JOHN VI. 58. 375 

literal manna, — food for the bodies of the Israel- 
ites, — tlie bread ojffered by Christ was literal bread, 
to be eaten and swallowed into the stomach. (2) 
According to Dr. Ives, since both the living and 
the dj'ing are to be understood literally, it follows 
that Christ meant to affii'm that the fathers would 
not live forever : otherwise there would be no con- 
trast between the two classes. But Christ says, 
'•^Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead." 
There is a contrast : what is it ? On Dr. Ives's 
ground, there is no other conclusion possible than 
that the fathers are not only annihilated, but shall 
none of them attain eternal life ; for he does not 
understand that those whom Christ addressed 
would not die a temporal death. In other words, 
the ancestors of the Jews are all indiscriminately 
assigned to everlasting perdition I and this, appar- 
ently, for the reason, not that they were impeni- 
tent, but that they ate manna! Any one, not 
burdened with a theory to maintain, must see that 
the contrast between the manna and the bread of 
life is precisely parallel with the contrast between 
physical life and spiritual life. The manna was 
designed to support physical Hfe ; but it could not 
make that life perpetual. The bread offered by 
Christ, however, would be permanent in its effect. 
When he says that he who eats of it shall " live for- 
ever," it is obvious that the language is as figura- 
tive as it is when he expresses the same thought 
in the same discourse (ver. 35) by saying, " He 



376 DEATH,— THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

that Cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that 
believeth on me shall never thirst." 

If any doubt can still remain concerning the 
meaning of the passages above cited, it will be 
removed by John vi. 50, — a part of the same dis- 
course about manna, &c. : " This is the bread which 
cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat 
thereof, and not die.^^ Here there is no eis ton 
aiona which any one can torture into a reference 
to the second death as distinguished from the first. 
And if, as Dr. Ives admits, the common view finds 
a strong support in xi. 26, provided it is correctly 
translated in our Bible, then he must admit that 
the same view is sustained by this passage, as to 
which there is no doubt of the correctness of the 
translation. The statement is absolute, affirming 
that believers in Christ shall not die. It is entirely 
irreconcilable with Dr. Ives's doctrine concerning 
death. According to him, all men must die. This 
passage must be, in his view, " a clear indorsement, 
as far as believers are concerned, of that original 
lie of the Evil One." Accordingly, he does not 
refer to it in his book. 

To the foregoing may be added 2 Tim. i. 10, 
where Paul says that Christ "hath abolished 
death." This again is absolute. On the theory that 
death always denotes the termination of existence, 
Paul here asserts an untruth. Dr. Ives quotes 
this passage (p. 153), but not with reference to 
this part of the verse ; and he seems to have over- 



THE ABOLITION OF DEATH. 877 

looked the force of it. The word here rendered 
" abolished " (Jcatargeo) properly means to render 
inefficacious or useless ; hence to put away, to de- 
stroy, &c. It is the word used in 1 Cor. vi. 13, — 
" God shall destroy both it and them." In vers. 8, 
10, 11, of chapter xiii., it is variously rendered 
"fail," "vanish away," "done away," "put away." 
It is the word also used in Heb. ii. 14, where we 
have a passage parallel to the one before us, — 
"That through death- he might destroy him that 
had the power of death ; that is, the devil." This 
is only another way of saying the same thing as is 
said in the passage above quoted. Christ by his 
death has frustrated the work of Satan, who by 
his wiles brought sin into the world, — that sin 
which is the "sting of death" (1 Cor. xv. bQ'). 
The abolishing of death is, therefore, the removal 
of the sting of it: so that, in view of what Christ 
had done, Paul could exclaim, " O death, where is 
thy sting? O hades [or, according to the best 
attested reading, O death], where is thy victory? " 
(ver. K>b.') The significance of these declarations 
is all the weightier for our purpose, inasmuch as 
the reference is predominantly, if not wholly, 
to the first death. The work of Christ in destroy- 
ing the Devil had for its effect to " deliver them 
who through fear of death were all their lifetime 
subject to bondage." And yet no on6 can imagine 
that this physical death is, in any literal sense, 
abolished. But the sting of it is taken away ; the 



378 DEATH, -THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

fear of it is removed. The sombre dread of the 
" undiscovered country " into which it introduces 
us is transformed into joyful assurance that " death 
is swallowed up in victory" (1 Cor. xv. 54). 
Physical death is represented as brought into the 
world by sin (Rom. v. 12). It is the object of 
universal and often of unspeakable dread to the 
natural man. It stands as the perpetual symbol 
of the divine displeasure towards sin. It is a mer- 
' ciless, inexorable power, holding sway even over 
those who have " not sinned after the similitude of 
Adam's transgression " (Rom. v. 14) ; and is the 
"last enemy " that is to be destroyed by the vic- 
torious Saviour (1 Cor. xv. 26). 

In the last passage referred to, death is spoken 
of as something yet to be destroyed ; though the 
same verb Qzatargeo) is used as in 2 Tim. i. 10, 
where death is spoken of as already destroyed. 
This well illustrates how little the biblical writers 
are bound to strict exactness of speech. It shows, 
that, even in their conception of physical death, a 
spiritual element entered : so that sometimes it is 
difficult to determine whether literal or figurative 
death is prominent in the conception of the writer. 
Thus Paul, in Rom. v. 12 (as above remarked), 
refers to physical death ; and so apparently, also, in 
vers. 17, 21, where he speaks of sin reigning "unto 
death." In vi. 16, again, we find the phrase " sin 
unto death " followed by the statement that the 
" end " of a wicked life is " death," and that " the 



"DEATH" MUST HAVE A FLEXIBLE SENSE. 379 

wages of sin is death " (vers. 21, 23). Then he 
goes on in chap. vii. to use similar language about 
sin bringing forth fruit unto death (ver. 5), and 
sin working death in him (ver. 13) ; and finally 
he exclaims, " Who shall deliver me from the body 
of this death?" (ver. 24.) Then, in chap, viii., 
where the deliverance is described, he says, " The 
law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made 
me free from the law of sin and death " (ver. 2). 
In this discussion of the apostle's, closely con- 
nected as these chapters are with one another, a 
coarse literalism cannot well avoid understanding 
*' death " to mean always one and the same thing ; 
viz., mere bodily dissolution, such as even infants, 
and all who have not, like Adam, sinned know- 
ingly and wilfully against the law, are subject to. 
But even the regenerate are not delivered from 
this death. The law of the spirit of life in Christ 
does not free us from the law of death, if by death 
is meant no more than bodily death. No one can 
or does understand the declaration so literally as 
that. There must be understood to be somewhere 
a transition from the more literal to the less literal. 
Something else than mere physical death must be 
lyiderstood to be meant in many of these passages. 
The annihilationist, no less than others, is obliged 
to exercise his judgment in determining where he 
shall abandon the strictly literal sense, and assume 
that reference is made to something else than mere 
physical death. The fact is, however, that he has 



380 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

to be much more arbitrary in his exposition than 
we : for while he maintains (erroneously enough) 
that in both cases he adheres to the literal sense, 
yet he has to make it at one time refer to the 
death which all men, good and bad, experience ; 
at another to the second death, which is experi- 
enced only by the condemned. If the only mean- 
ing attributed to the word is that of extermination 
of being, it is impossible by any thing but the most 
arbitrary process of interpretation to make sense 
of the above-mentioned discussion of Paul. Mr. 
White, indeed, from this very discussion derives 
an argument for his view. In Rom. v. 14 he says, 
it must be that Paul " intends no other death than 
that which is so plainly described, — a dissolution 
of humanity, without reference to a future eternal 
state of suffering for the soul; else we shall find 
ourselves called upon to receive the abominable 
doctrine, that the souls of infants, children, idiots, 
' from Adam to Moses,' went into a state of ever- 
lasting suffering after their natural death, and 
that, as is specially pointed out, for no fault of their 
own"" (p. 107). Hence he .argues, that in the 
twelfth verse the same thing must be denoted by 
" death." Very well : but in ver. 12, let it be 
remembered, death is expressly declared to have 
entered ^' by sin ; " and all along, through this and 
the next chapters, death is uniformly represented 
as resulting from sin. If, then, in ver. 12, nothing 
but physical death is meant, logical consist- 



DEATH THE RESULT OF SIN. 381 

ency requires us to hold that nothing but physical 
death is meant in vi. 23, where it is said that " the 
wages of sin is death ; " and, for the same reason., 
that nothing but the first (physical) death can be 
meant when Paul declares (viii. 2) that he has 
been made free from the law of death. But no : 
somewhere Mr. White must assume that there has 
been a leap from the strictly literal sense of physi- 
cal death, as the natural lot of all men, to that 
very different thing, ultimate extinction, from 
which he holds that Christ delivers only the be- 
liever. The logical vise which he prepares for his 
opponents holds him also with at least as firm a 
grip. 

There is, in fact, no natural and easy solution 
of the problem thus presented but that which is 
obtained when we observe that death, even when 
predominantly or exclusively used with reference 
to physical death, is yet everywhere spoken of in 
these chapters as the result of sin. It is not the 
outward physical phenomenon, but the ethical 
relation of it, that is emphasized. That one feature 
in the conception — viz., that it is the divinely ap- 
pointed consequence of sin — is held firm through- 
out the whole discussion. Sometimes the apostle 
has especially mere physical death in mind ; but 
even this is represented as occasioned by Adam's 
sin. At other times he has something else in mind, 
— viz., some future retribution ; but still it is some- 
thing occasioned and merited by sin. The word 



382 DEATH, — THE SPHIITUAL SENSE. 

" death," from beginning to end, denotes an evil 
visited on men because of sin. The physical death 
which befalls all men is a result of Adam's sin : it 
was the outward form of the penalty denounced 
against him at the outset. The word denoting it 
became thus appropriated to the generic notion of 
the penalty of sin. Hence it is that Paul can 
easily pass from the more literal and outward 
sense to the more spiritiial and inward. 

When, now, we are told that the believer shall 
not die, — shall never die ; that Christ has abol- 
ished death, &c., — the meaning is obvious : the 
penal consequences of sin are averted from the be- 
liever. Death, considered as the result or punish- 
ment of sin, is abolished. Physical death, indeed, 
is not abolished ; but the sting of it, the penal 
character of it, is taken away : it becomes a sleep, 
a departure, an entrance , into nearer fellowship 
with Christ. But, if we attempt to make " death " 
always mean one and the same thing, — i.e., a ces- 
sation of existence, — such declarations as the above 
have no clear sense. Dr. Ives and the materialists 
cannot make them fit into their system at all. 
And the other annihilationists are little better off : 
they have to understand " death," in the above- 
mentioned passages which declare the absolute 
abolition of death so far as believers are con- 
cerned, as denoting future extermination to the 
exclusion oi physical death; while in other passages, 
in the same connection^ they interpret the same word 



BIBLICAL DEFINITIONS OF DEATH. 383 

as denoting physical death to the exclusion of 
future extermination, 

h. The other class of passages which imply or 
assert that the death which is the wages of sin is 
not extermination consists of those in which the 
final destiny of the wicked is described positively 
as something else than extermination. 

(1) There are passages which represent the 
doom of the sinner to be a state of condemnation 
or suffering. In Rom. ii. 6-10 are described the 
opposite destinies of the good and the bad. Of 
the former it is said that God will render unto 
them " eternal life " (ver. 7) ; which is further 
described (ver. 10) as consisting in "glory, honor, 
and peace." But against the bad is threatened 
(vers. 8, 9) " indignation and wrath, tribulation 
and anguish." There is, perhaps, no place in the 
Bible where the contrast between the sentence of 
the righteous and that of the wicked is more fully 
and formally set forth. Yet here Paul has noth 
ing to say about extermination : he uses no word 
which suggests such an idea. In like manner, 
when Christ, in John v. 29, treats of the same 
point, he says that all men " shall come forth ; they 
that have done good, unto the resurrection of life ; 
and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection 
of damnation [judgment]." Here, as in the pre- 
ceding passage, the p'romise of life to the righteous 
would make one expect to find death denounced 
against the wicked, if, as is assumed, life denotes 



384 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

existence, and the ultimate fate of the wicked is 
non-existence. But, instead of this, the opposite 
of life is called judgment ; not judgment in the 
general sense, however, — for all men are to be 
judged, — but judgment in the sense of condemna- 
tion. A similar representation is found in John v. 
24. Again : in John iii. 36 it is said, " He that 
believeth on the Son hath everlasting life ; and he 
that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but 
the wrath of God abideth on him." Here the con- 
trast is still more sharply put. It is said of the 
unbeliever that he shall not see life ; but the op- 
posite, elsewhere called death, is here called di- 
vine wrath abiding on him. The whole cast of 
the verse is utterly opposed to the doctrine of anni- 
hilation. The unbeliever shall not see life, — the 
strongest mode of asserting that he now does not, 
and never shall, see life; i.e., live. Life^ then, 
here cannot mean existence ; for the unbeliever is 
surely existent. And if one were disposed to con- 
jecture that the phrase is a shortened form of the 
frequent one, " eternal life," this conjecture, in 
itself utterly unwarranted, is overturned by what 
follows. Not seeing life is defined as abiding under 
the wrath of God. Instead of some expression 
implying the termination of existence, we have 
one which implies the opposite. Dr. Ives explains 
it : " The wrath of God [as expressed in his de- 
struction] abideth on him " (p. 159). But the 
wrath of God cannot well abide on a nonentity. 



DEATH NOT ANNIHILATION. 385 

We cannot make the expression convey such a 
meaning without at least resorting to a very bold 
figure ; and then what becomes of Dr. Ives's great 
law of the literal and the figurative? But this is not 
all. The destruction (annihilation), if that is what 
is meant by wrath, must be something future ; but 
it is described as something present^ — something 
simultaneous with the not believing. Nor can we 
even plausibly assume that the present is here 
used for the future ; for the other and synonymous 
statement made about the unbeliever, that he shall 
not see life, is expressed in the use of the future 
tense. If the meaning is, that the wrath of God, 
as expressed in the unbeliever's destruction, shall 
abide on him, the greatest possible pains seems to 
have been taken by John to conceal his real mean- 
ing. Finally, if the wrath of God is expressed in 
the sinner's destruction, how are we to reconcile 
this with Dr. Ives's assurance, to which we re- 
ferred on p. 342, that " the infinite mercy of the 
Almighty" was manifested in keeping Adam 
from the tree of life, since to him " endless exist- 
ence were an endless curse "? How is it that the 
same destruction is at once the expression of wrath 
and of mercy ? 

Furthermore, the penalty of sin is described as 
a being "cast out into outer darkness," where 
" there shall be weeping, and gnashing of teeth " 
(Matt. viii. 12, xxii. 13, xxiv. 51, xxv. 30 ; Luke 
xiii. 28) ; a being visited with " the mist of dark- 



386 DEATH,— THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

ness forever " (2 Pet. ii. 17^ ; a being " cast into a 
furnace oU fire " (Matt. xiii. 42, 50) ; a being cast 
into hell (Matt. v. 22, 29, 30, x. 28, xviii. 9, xxiii. 
33 ; Luke xii. 5), into unquenclied fire (Matt. iii. 
12 ; Luke iii. 17), with an undying worm (Mark 
ix. 48) ; a being cast into a lake of fire (Rev. xix. 
20, XX. 10, 15). Moreover, it is called a punish- 
ment (Matt. XXV. 46), and a being tormented 
(Rev. xiv. 10, XX. 10). We are aware that all 
this may be, and is, explained as being merely a 
description of the suffering preceding or accompa- 
nying the destruction of which the result is the 
extinction of being. In fact, it is argued that 
the very representation that the punishment of 
the wicked is to be effected by means of fire shows 
that annihilation is taught, since it is the property 
of fire to consume. To this we must reply, in the 
first place, that the diversity/ in the description of 
future suffering makes it impossible to understand 
this language literally. If the place of suffering 
is a lake, it is not a furnace ; if the instrument of 
torture is fire, it cannot at the same time be a 
worm, nor can it be the mist of darkness. The 
only natural interpretation is that which makes all 
these and other similar passages graphic pictures 
of that suffering which will characterize the future 
condition of the impenitent, and which needs to 
be thus figuratively described ^because human lan- 
guage is unsuited to an exact description of a state 
lying entirely outside of earthly experience. In 



FUTURE PUNISHMENT ETERNAL. 387 

the second place, we reply that some of these pas- 
sages, and others besides, positively represent this 
suffering as not terminating in extinction. Let us 
attend to this point. 

(2) The future punishment of sinners is de- 
clared to be eternal. This is implied in the state- 
ment that the fire is unquenched, and the worm 
dieth not (Matt. iii. 12 ; Mark ix. 48), and in the 
epithet " everlasting " (eternal) applied to the 
"fire" in Matt, xviii. 8, xxv. 41, Jude 7. We 
are aware ' that it is replied to this (and some- 
times with a tone of great surprise that such a 
doctrine can be derived from these expressions), 
that the eternity of the fire and of the worm by no 
means implies the eternity of the person tormented 
by them. Mr. White even thinks, that, in the pas- 
sage about the undying worm, he has found a 
conclusive argument against his opponents in re 
spect to the biblical meaning of death : " Be it 
observed, that, when it serves the purpose of the 
doctrine of eternal misery to prove that the * worm 
of conscience will never cease to gnaw,' then the 
verb to die must be taken in its natural and ob- 
vious sense of cease to he " (p. 406). To such a 
charge it may be sufficient to reply : (a) No one 
ever thought of making the verb "die" always 
mean " to be miserable," even when used of men, 
still less when used of worms. (6) It is certainly 
true that worms do cease to gnaw when they die, 
whether they cease to he or not ; and, beyond a 



DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

doubt, it is the perpetual gnawing, and not the per- 
petual existence, which Christ meant to emphasize, 
(c) Furthermore : it is said, " Their worm dieth 
not ; " which, on Mr. White's doctrine that the 
worm is immortal, has little meaning. The worm, 
itself undying, must cease to be their worm after 
they are exterminated. In short, this mode of 
evading the obvious meaning of the phraseology 
under consideration is shown to be futile when 
we observe that the Scriptures represent all the 
condemned as cast into hell at the same time. If 
the instrument of pain, whatever that may be, is 
itself eternal, then there must be eternally some- 
thing for it to operate on. The allegation that the 
fire, from its very nature, puts an end to the exist- 
ence of those cast into it, must imply, therefore, 
that, after all men are exterminated, the fire itself 
continues to burn, and the worm to gnaw. To 
avoid this absurdity, resort is had to the assump- 
tion, that, when the fire is said to be unquenched, 
we are merely to understand that it will not go 
out so long'as there is any thing to burn. But 
what about the eternal fire ? The annihilationists 
have no resource but to shift their ground again, 
and assume that the word rendered "eternal" 
(^aidnios) here denotes a limited duration. The 
fire, say they, lasts as long as there is any need of 
it, and of course will not burn any longer. 

But not only the instruments of punishment are 
said to be eternal : the punishment itself is said to 



MATT. XXV. 46. 389 

be eternal (Matt. xxv. 46). It is called an "ever- 
lasting [eternal] destruction from the presence 
of the Lord" (2 Thess. i. 9), and the judgment 
visited on men is called an " eternal judgment " 
(Heb. vi. 2). What shall be said of these expres- 
sions ? In reference to the first, Mr. White begins 
by trying to make the impression, that perhaps 
Christ's language has not been correctly reported. 
He then touches on the fact that some of the old 
versions have " fire " instead of " punishment." 
He next lays stress on the fact that " everlasting " 
should be " eternal," and remarks on the limited 
sense often belonging to expressions otherwise de- 
noting endless duration; but he finally settles 
down into the conclusion that the phrase means a 
punishment "extending in its results to eternity" 
(p. 398). He comes to the same conclusion con- 
cerning 2 Thess. i. 9. We do not know why he 
has so much to sa}^ by way of casting doubt on 
the authenticity of Matt. xxv. 46, unless he has 
the feeling that his discussion is hardly conclusive, 
and he wishes to open other doors of escape to 
those who may prefer them.^ 

It thus appears that " eternal " is made to mean 
infinite in duration, or indefinite in duration, or 

1 Mr. Constable (Nature and Duration of Future Punish- 
ment) adopts a still easier method of dealing with Matt. xxv. 46. 
In the chapter in which he professes " to give to some individual 
texts that attention which from their prominent place in the con- 
troversy they deserve" (p. 194), he simply makes no reference to 
it, as if it never had a prominent place at all. 



390 DEATH, — THE SPHIITUAL SENSE. 

producing effects that are infinite in duration, — 
all according to the exigencies of the theory whicli 
is to be maintained. But that aionios ever is used 
in the New Testament of any future thing which 
is limited in duration cannot be affirmed, unless it is 
assumed to have this meaning in the cases above 
considered. That it is ever applied anywhere else 
to any thing as pointing to the eternity of effect 
can also not be maintained. The only plausible 
instances are Heb. vi. 2 (above referred to), where 
the judgment is called eternal; Heb. ix. 12, where 
we read of " eternal redemption ; " and Mark iii. 29, 
where it is said that the blasphemer against the Holy 
Ghost " hath never forgiveness, but is in danger 
of eternal damnation ; " where, however, the best 
manuscripts have '^ sin " instead of " damnation " 
(judgment) ; so that* we should read, "is guilty of 
an eternal sin." But in Heb. vi. 2 the Greek word 
is hrima^ which denotes not merely the act of 
judging, the judicial sentence (denoted by Tcrisis)^ 
but the thing adjudged. Thus Paul says in Gal. 
V. 10, " He that troubleth you shall bear his judg- 
ment [krima]^ whosoever he be." Judgment, in 
this sense of something to be borne, may as ap- 
propriately be called eternal as any thing else. So 
the phrase " eternal redemption," like the similar 
one, "eternal salvation" (Heb. v. 9), requires no 
assumption of any peculiar sense of the adjective. 
In one sense the act of salvation or redemption 
may be regarded as instantaneous ; but in another 



"ETERNITY OF EFFECT." 391 

it is a process. The instantaneous act is only the 
beginning of a continuous work of grace. Hence 
we read of those who are " being saved " (as the 
present passive 'should be rendered) in Acts ii. 47, 
2 Cor. ii. 15, &c. As to the phrase " eternal sin," 
the connection plainly shows what is meant. It is 
the sin against the Holy Ghost which is called 
eternal, not merely because eternal in its effect, 
but because, being eternally unforgiven, it is to 
continue forever as a sin. Guilt is to be forever 
charged against the sinner : the sin is never to be 
blotted out. 

But, even if it could be shown that aidnios may 
be used with reference to eternity of effect, it is 
obvious that it is only when the nature of the 
thing to which it is applied requires such interpre- 
tation that we are warranted in making it. In the 
case of "eternal punishments^'' the nature of the 
thing is such that the proper sense of " eternal " 
is the only one that can without violence be given 
to it. It is only by changing the word " punish- 
ment " to " death," or something similar, that any 
plausibility can be attached to the other interpre- 
tation; and even then it is no more plausible 
than it would be for one to say of a man who has 
been hung, that he is suffering perpetual agony, 
meaning that the man suffered a momentary agony 
which resulted in perpetual insensibility. 

Stress is sometimes laid on the fact thp,t death is 
never called eternal in the Bible. Dr. Whiton 



392 DEATH, -THE SPHIITUAL SENSE. 

("Is 'Eternal' Punishment Endless?" p. 58, seq.) 
undertakes to explain this noticeable fact. He 
says, that, if the future death is conceived by the 
biblical writers as a state (as the wOrd is sometimes 
used respecting sinners in this life), there would 
seem to be no reason why it should not be called 
an eternal death, especially as the antithetic phrase 
" eternal life " is so often used. Hence he infers, 
that, in this connection, " death " denotes " a limit 
of existence reached : " so that the phrase " seonian 
death " is avoided as being misleading. The word 
'' destruction " being more definite than " death," 
it is, he says, less misleading to call it "eter- 
nal." But what has he to say of the phrase 
" eternal punishment " ? This, he says (p. b5}^ 
means simply "punishment taking place in eter- 
nity.'" 1 If so, then why might not " eternal death " 
be freely used, the meaning being " death taking 
place in eternity"? How is this phrase more 
likely to mislead than the other ? But in another 
place (p. 48, seg.) he attempts another definition 
of the adjective, giving it a qualitative rather than 
a quantitative sense ; i.e., making it denote a cer- 
tain kind rather than a certain duration of life. 
But what kind ? " The aeonian life, primarily^ as 



1 He fortifies himself in this definition by a reference to Rob- 
inson's definition of " judgment " as used in Heb. vi. 2 ; neglect- 
ing to state, however, that Kobinson, so far from sustaining his 
definition of aionios, defines it as, in this very passage, meaning 
eternal in the proper sense of unlimited duration. 



WHY "DEATH" IS NOT CALLED "ETERNAL." 393 

defined by its Divine Author himself [John xvii. 
3], is that kind of life which is vitalized, formed, 
and blessed by knowing God and his Son." But 
how does the idea of perpetuity come in at all? 
Because, he replies, " the qualities which char- 
acterize that life are vital, progressive, and endur- 
ing." According to this, aidnios itself conveys 
no conception of time at all, any more than the 
word " strong ; " which, however, may suggest the 
notion of time by the quality of endurance which 
inheres in it. To this we reply, not only that 
this is an utter misrepresentation of philological 
fact, not only that the thing defined by Christ in 
John xvii. 3 is ?//e, not eter7ial, but that Dr. Whi- 
ton's definition of aidnios here is in contradiction of 
the one which he afterwards gives, — " taking place 
in eternity," — in which the notion of time, and 
nothing else, enters. Indeed, it seems to be .the 
general characteristic of this work of his to use 
arguments of all sorts" against the usual interpreta- 
tion, even though one argument entirely over- 
throws another. 

That the Bible nowhere uses the phrase " eternal 
death " is easily explained by the consideration, 
that while " death " is used in the spiritual and 
penal sense, yet the form of the phraseology em- 
ployed is shaped somewhat according to the literal 
sense. As " life," in thp literal sense, is often used, 
not only to denote a state of vitality, but the time 
during which that state continues, an adjective 



394 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

denoting perpetuity may naturally be applied to 
it: hence, in the tropical sense, life may naturally 
be called eternal. But " death," in the literal sense, 
ordinarily denotes, not the time during which the 
state of death continues, but the temporary event 
which begins it. Hence the phrase " eternal 
death," which could not be used properly of phys- 
ical death, is also not used of spiritual death; 
though there would be no absolute impropriety in 
using it, as is seen in the use of the phrase " eternal 
destruction," in which all agree that "destruction" 
is synonymous with " death." 

We proceed to notice some passages in the book 
of Revelation in which the notion of the perpe- 
tuity of conscious suffering in the future world is 
still more clearly affirmed, if possible, than in those 
already considered. In Rev. xiv. 10, 11, it is said 
of him who worships the beast and "his image, "He 
shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the 
presence of the holy angels, and in the presence 
of the Lamb ; and the smoke of their torment 
ascendeth up for ever and ever; and they have no 
rest day nor night." Here the declaration seems 
to be absolutely unequivocal. The effect of the 
fire is plainly declared to be, not to extinguish^hut to 
torment forever. This is still more directl}^ asserted 
in XX. 10, which says of the devil, the beast, and 
the false prophet, that they were cast into a lake 
of fire and brimstone, and " shall be tormented day 
and night for ever and ever." 



PASSAGES IN REVELATION. 395 

How, now, can the meaning of this be misappre- 
hended? Dr. Ives (p. 206) understands literally 
the statement in Rev. xx. 15, that those whose 
names are not found in the book of life are to be 
" cast into the lake of fire." Now, in xix. 20 we 
are told that the beast and the false prophet were 
" cast alive into a [the] lake of fire burning with 
brimstone." In xx. 10 we are told that the devil 
was cast into the same "lake of fire and brim- 
stone;" and then, in xx. 15, that all whose names 
were not. found in the book of life were cast into 
" the lake of fire." No one can mistake the iden- 
tity of the lake in these three passages, nor doubt 
that the "fire and brimstone" here spoken of are 
the same as in xiv. 10, where, however, no " lake " 
is mentioned. Not even Dr. Ives questions this. 
But he says (p. 177) that the " torment " in xiv. 
10 is to be explained by the same phrase in xx. 10. 
As to the latter passage, he observes that the 
"beast" cannot be understood literally, being 
shown by Dan. vii. to mean a kingdom. Now, 
a government cannot be " literally forever tor- 
mented," since otherwise it would have " to exist 
forever." Therefore the eternal torment simply 
means, " that that fearful ending of existence, 
whenever it rises before the mind of the surviving 
beholders, is as if the smoke of that burning were 
still ascending before one's actual vision " ! Let 
us examine this. Dr. Ives does not deny that the 
beast and the false prophet mean something : and 



396 DEATH, — THE SPHlITUAIi SENSE. 

he seems to admit, that, whatever they were, they 
were, or are to be, literally cast into fire ; for he 
speaks of "the smoke of that burning." At all 
events, admitting that " beast " symbolizes a gov- 
ernment, yet we must ask, What is a government 
but a person or persons exercising power ? Most 
obviously, then, when the government is said to 
have been cast into the lake, it must mean that 
the persons representing it were cast in. More- 
over, the devil was cast in with the beast and 
false prophet, and with them is to be tormented. 
Dr. Ives does not understand him to be symbolic, 
but literal. Thus it seems, that, according to this 
author, the lake of fire is literal ; the devil is literal ; 
the wicked men, who in xiv. 10, xx. 15, and xxi. 8, 
are said to be doomed to be cast into the lake, are 
literal; and even the torment is literal: but be- 
cause another class of persons, also declared to be 
cast into the lake, is symbolically described^ there- 
fore the perpetuity of the torment is to be under- 
stood figuratively ! With such an elastic principle 
of interpretation, it is obvious that a man can come 
to any result he pleases. 

Dr. Whiton, in like manner, falls back on the 
figurativeness of the book as a sufficient solution. 
Because, in xx. 14, Death and Hades are said to be 
cast into the lake of fire, and this cannot be un- 
derstood literally, therefore he concludes respect- 
ing this and ver. 10 that "one of these neighboring 
expressions is probably just as literal, or just as 



EVASIONS OF JOHN'S REVELATION. 397 

figurative, as the other " (p. 25) ; but whether 
either expression means any thing, or what either 
of them means, he does not undertake to say. 

Mr. Pettingell's method of disposing of these 
passages is characteristic. After having descanted 
upon the great difficulty of interpreting the in- 
tensely figurative language of Revelation, he settles 
the whole matter by reference to Rev. xx. 14, the 
most figurative passage of all: "Death and hell 
were cast into the lake of fire." Here, he says, 
we are " told that not only death, hut hell also^ is 
cast into this all-consuming lake of fire," and is 
therefore destroyed. " Could there be," he asks, 
" a more clear and positive description of the utter 
destruction of all evil of every sort than this ? " 
(p. 222.) Mr. Pettingell sometimes shows evi- 
dence of having looked into the Greek Testament. 
Does he, or does he not, know that the word here 
rendered " hell " is not Gehenna^ but Hades ? Was 
he in so great a hurry to proclaim the truth of 
conditional immortality to the world, that he had 
no time to consult the Greek original at this 
point? On p. 131 he distinguishes between Hades 
and Gehenna^ showing that he is not unacquainted 
with the difference. But, not to dwell on this, 
ver. 10 says that the devil, the beast, and the false 
prophet are to be tormented for ever and ever 
(eis tons aidnas ton aionon). What has Mr. Pet- 
tingell to say to this? Simply that this phrase 
means "to the end of time" (p. 221). Then he 



398 DEATH, — THE SPmiTUAL SENSE. 

informs us (for the information does not come from 
the Bible), that, after this, " the vision changes ; 
time has passed away; eternity begins." Con- 
sequently, all evil, when eternity has begun, is 
destroyed. But where did he learn that the 
Greek phrase above quoted means " to the end of 
time " ? If it does, what does it mean, when, after 
*' time has passed away," it is said of the saints 
(Rev. xxii. 5) that " they shall reign for ever and 
ever " ? What does it mean in the doxologies, — 
e.g.. Gal. i. 5, 2 Tim. iv. 18? and in Rev. v. 14, 
"him that liveth for ever and ever " ? Does Mr. 
Pettingell know what he means in saying that 
" time has passed away " ? If, after that strange 
event, eternity begins^ how are we to understand 
this heginning ? Is not the notion of time implied 
in the notion of heginning? Unless eternity ends 
the instant it begins^ there must be a continuance 
of it; but this implies time. Shall we conclude 
that Mr. Pettingell has invented a definition of 
eis tous aidnas ton aionon which will enable him to 
say that the torment is to have an end, and then 
invents a piece of information about time's coming 
to an end, in spite of the absolute inconceivability 
of the notion, all in order to get rid of the doc- 
trine of eternal punishment? But, in any case, 
how ajre we to understand his statement (p. 196) 
that the phrases translated "eternal," "forever," 
&c., " are never employed to define . . . the dura- 
tion of the sufferi7igs of the wicked " ? According 



MR. PETTINGELL'S EEVELATION. 399 

to his own confession on p. 221, one of tliem is 
employed to denote the duration of torment; only 
it is discovered to be limited duration. How the 
discovery is made is indicated on p. 195, where we 
read, " When the term [a/Jw, &c.] is applied to 
that which might be supposed to be endless with- 
out doing violence to reason, or to that concerning 
which we have no other evidence whatever but 
such as we find in this word or phrase, all we can 
do is to give to the expression that very indefinite- 
ness which is its peculiar characteristic." We are 
then to conclude that the torment is limited, either 
because it is contrary to reason to suppose other- 
wise, or because there is nothing else to prove that 
it is endless. As to the latter point, it is difficult 
to see how, according to Mr. Pettingell, the eter- 
nity of the suffering could be expressed at all, since 
it is expressed as strongly as the eternity of God 
is ever expressed ; it being impossible to find a 
stronger expression in the New Testament. As 
to the former point, we can only say, that if Mr. 
Pettingell means (as he probably does) that the 
doctrine of eternal punishment does violence to 
reason, and that, therefore^ every thing that seems 
to teach it must be made to mean something else, 
then it is difficult to see why he wrote his book. 
Those who already agree with him do not ne^d his 
arguments, and those to whom the hated doctrine 
is mjt irrational are not likely to be convinced by 
a style of exegesis which is adopted only to save a 



400 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

foregone conclusion. After seeing such treatment 
of this passage, we may well be almost in doubt 
who is referred to when we read farther on 
(p. 223) : "And yet, strange to say, we find pious 
and otherwise rational men so blinded by this 
dogma, and so hard pressed for arguments to sup- 
port it, eagerly catching up such of the figures 
and phrases of this vision as will suit their pur- 
pose." 

Mr. White gets around the difficulty similarly. 
Having shown that the destruction visited on the 
wicked is called death, or the second death, and 
assuming, as usual, that this must mean extermi- 
nation, since "there must be a generic likeness 
between" the first and the second death (although, 
as we have seen, he himself really makes them 
generically unlike, since, according to him, the first 
death is not extermination), he concludes (p. 411) 
"that the passages in question in Rev. xiv., xix., 
and XX., delivered in the symbolic language of 
prophecy, must be interpreted so as to accord with 
these facts." He satisfies himself, like Mr. Pettin- 
gell, with the assumption, that as the phrases trans- 
lated "forever," &c., do not always mean literal 
eternity, therefore in this case the punishment 
maybe "a long but limited infliction" (p. 413). 
He even goes so far as to say, when speaking about 
the threatened destruction, "Nothing is affirmed 
by them [Christ and his apostles in reference to 
the duration of the sufferings] of ' untold ages ' " 



DAN. XII. 2. 401 

(p. 353). This is a surprising statement when we 
consider that Christ himself calls the sufferings 
eternal, and John says that they are to be endured 
"ages of ages" (Rev. xx. 10), — the strongest ex- 
pression known to the New-Testament writers for 
unlimited duration ; in the latter case with noth- 
ing in the context to suggest a limitation, and in 
the former case with the antithetic phrase "eternal 
life " positively suggesting that there is no limita- 
tion. Such a mode of dealing with the case throws 
light on his principle of interpretation above quot- 
ed, that the language of John " must be interpreted 
so as to accord " with his assumption that death 
means extermination. Whatever must be done 
of course can be done, even though some violence 
is required in order to do it. 

Similar distortion of an obvious meaning is prac- 
tised upon Dan. xii. 2 : " Many of them that sleep 
in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to ever- 
lasting life, and some to shame and everlasting 
contempt." Dr. Ives says, " ' shame [to be felt b}^ 
themselves] and everlasting contempt,' to be felt by 
those surviving them" (p. 332). Mr. Pettingell 
makes a similar distinction (pp. 167, 203). This 
passage, he says, seems to favor the doctrine of eter- 
nal suffering " only because it is misquoted ; " i.e., 
as he complains, by applying "everlasting" to 
" shame " as well as " contempt." The shame 
" which the wicked feel themselves," he says, will 
continue only " as long as their miserable lives con- 



402 DEATH, — THE SPIKTTUAL SENSE. 

tinue ; " but the contempt felt for them by others 
will be everlasting. The simple fact is, however, 
that neither of the words rendered " shame " and 
" contempt," either here or elsewhere, denotes the 
emotion of shame or contempt. The first word, 
hherpah^ is almost always rendered " reproach " in 
our Bible, and means either an object of reproach 
(Dan. ix. 16), or a cause of reproach (Gen. xxxiv. 
14), or the act of reproaching (Neh. iv. 4), or a 
condition of reproach (Neh. i. 3). In the passage 
before us, the meaning, therefore, must be, that the 
second class of persons are to rise unto a condition, 
or so as to become an object, of reproach and of 
everlasting abhorrence. This, now, may seem to 
make the case all the stronger for the authors above 
named. But observe that Daniel says that those 
who have been asleep (i.e., dead) are to rise unto re- 
proach and abhorrence. The interpretation under 
consideration quietly interpolates what Daniel says 
nothing about, — a destruction (annihilation) of 
the wicked as following the resurrection. Ac- 
cording to Dr. Ives, they have before been extermi- 
nated, and now they are restored to existence (for 
this is what he understands by resurrection). So 
that, when Daniel says that those who have been 
exterminated are restored to existence so as to be- 
become objects of perpetual abhorrence. Dr. Ives 
understands this to mean that they are put out of 
existence so' as to become such objects of abhor- 
rence ! No one, not precommitted to an opposite 



ISA. LXVI. 24. 403 

view, could naturally understand the passage oth- 
erwise than as asserting that the second class of 
pei'sons mentioned, after having lain dead in the 
grave, are to rise. from the grave, and come into a 
condition of perpetual disgrace. 

We refrain from a prolonged examination of the 
various ways in which the apparent meaning of 
the foregoing and other passages is explained 
away. One favorite method is to find that the 
language of the New Testament is a quotation 
or accommodation of something taken from the 
Old Testament. Thus the worm and the fire of 
Mark ix. 48 are said to be evidently borrowed 
from Isa. Ixvi. 24, where it is said of the Lord's 
worshippers that "they shall go forth and look 
upon the carcasses of the men that have trans- 
gressed against me ; for their worm shall not die, 
neither shall their fire be quenched." This, say 
Mr. Constable (p. 195) and Dr. Ives (p. 174), 
shows what Christ meant: it is "not the living 
but the dead" — carcasses — that the worm and fire 
are to consume. No doubt Isaiah so seems to put 
the matter, and no doubt our Saviour's language 
is borrowed from Isaiah. No doubt, also, literal 
worms generally attack the body only after it has 
become a corpse. But what then ? Do these au- 
thors mean that the threat of the fire and the 
worm has reference only to that which the lifeless 
corpse is to experience in hell ? No : both of them 
over and over emphasize the doctrine that literal 



404 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

suffering is to be endured there. " How pro- 
tracted may be the act of dying in each case in 
that furnace of fire the Lord does not reveal " 
(Dr. Ives, p. 163). " Hell is not to all a sudden 
cessation of existence. There is life in that fear- 
ful prison, though it continues not forever " (Mr. 
Constable, p. 207). But, if so, vi^herefore this 
emphasizing and Italicizing of the word "car- 
casses " in Isa. Ixvi. 24 ? Either Christ means the 
same thing as Isaiah is said to mean, or he only 
borrows his language, and means a different thing. 
If he means the same thing, then his doctrine 
of hell is simply that it is a place where corpses 
are consumed; but he elsewhere so manifestly 
pictures hell as a place of suffering, that even 
these boldest of materialists have to admit that 
hell is something more than a furnace where life- 
less bodies are consumed. Consequently it is 
clear that Christ means something radically differ- 
ent from what Isaiah is said to mean. And, if so, 
what honest purpose is served by this appeal to 
Isaiah as a commentary on Christ ? It would be 
as legitimate to argue that hell ( Gehenna) itself is 
nothing but the valley of Hinnom, because the 
Greek name of it is nothing but the Hebrew word 
for that valley. Mr. White is more cautious. 
He, too, refers to Isaiah ; but his inference is, " In 
either case [at the destruction of Jerusalem, and 
at the final judgment] the effect will be death.: 
the wicked will become dead corpses ^^ (p. 408), 



MR. WHITE ON ISA. LXVI. 24. 405 

On the same page he speaks of the term " carcass- 
es" used by Isaiah as describing "the condition 
of these victims of the worm and the /r^," and 
infers that the worm must symbolize absolute 
death, not the gnawing of conscience. But, we 
must ask, does Mr. White mean that men " become 
dead corpses " through the action of the worm and 
the fire ? He says that the passage in Isaiah evi- 
dently refers to the Assyrian slaughter (2 Kings 
xix. 35). But were the Assyrians slaughtered by 
fire and worms ? Mr. White cannot help implying 
a distinction between the two cases, even while 
trying to conceal it. On p. 407, speaking of the. 
passage in Isaiah, he says, "The 'worm' stands 
naturally iov putrefaction^ the concomitant of death: " 
thus probably meaning to intimate that the worm, 
both there and in Mark ix. 48, is not to be under- 
stood literally, but is to be taken to mean some- 
thing which it " naturally " symbolizes ; viz., the 
"concomitant," or, more exactly, the sequel of 
death. But, if it "naturally" symbolizes that 
which follows death, it does not naturally sym- 
bolize that which precedes and causes death. If 
Christ's language is to be explained by Isaiah's, 
and if the symbol is to be limited to the natural 
relation of worms to literal death, then the analogy , 
must be carried through, and we must not tacitly 
abandon it by saying that " the effect " of being 
given over to the fire and the worm "will be 
death." 



406 DEATH, -THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

While saying this, we do not admit that Isaiah 
is to be understood so literally as is implied by 
the writers above mentioned. What he says has 
express reference to "the new heavens and the 
new earth " which the Lord is to make (ver. 22) ; 
and the phraseology of the concluding verse of the 
chapter, though in form borrowed from the phe- 
nomena of the present earth, is yet descriptive 
of future retribution. The worm undoubtedly 
is suggested by what is found in putrefying 
corpses; but so in Isa. xiv. 11, where the king 
of Babylon is addressed as if still living while he 
descends into Sheol, it is said, " The worm is spread 
under thee, and the worms cover thee." More- 
over, whatever may be said of the naturalness of 
symbolizing putrefaction by worms, it is not natural 
to associate them with fire. Hence Knobel, a most 
able commentator, but one who would be one of 
the last to depart unnecessarily from a literal inter- 
pretation of the passage, says, " The corpses of the 
fallen, therefore, lie unburied, as a punishment (vide 
xiv. 19) ; and Jehovah will cause them still to 
retain sensibility (Job xiv. 22), and to be inces- 
santly and painfully eaten by worms, and the fire 
by which he has slain them (ver. 16) to burn con- 
tinually, and to cause them uninterrupted pain." 
In this view commentators of all schools, as Gese- 
nius, Vitringa, Umbreit, Drechsler, Delitzsch, 
Cowles, Alexander, Maurer, Barnes, Ewald, sub- 
stantially agree. When, therefore, Mr. Pet tin- 



THE WORM AND THE FHIE. 407 

gell (p. 208), quoting from Barnes on Mark ix. 
43-48), attempts to make the impression that he 
understands Isaiah to mean " no more " than that 
the worm shall eat and the fire shall burn only 
"as long as there are carcasses to be devoured," 
and adds, " No sensible man thinks of giving it 
any other interpretation as originally used by the 
prophet," notwithstanding the fact that Barnes 
says in his Commentary on Isaiah that the prophet 
describes ^'■punishment loathsome like that of ever- 
gnawing worms on the carcasses of the Slain, and 
interminable and dreadful, like ever-consuming and 
inextinguishable fires," the necessary conclusion 
seems to be, that whether or not any are " sensi- 
ble," except Mr. Pettingell and those who agree 
with him, his own " sense " is of a sort not closely 
related to accuracy. 

A somewhat similar comment might be made 
on Isa. xxxiii. 14: "Who among us shall dwell 
with the devouring fire? who among us shall 
dwell with everlasting burnings ? " We attach no 
decisive importance to it as a proof-text concern- 
ing the doctrine of future punishment ; but, like 
Ixvi. 24, it refers to the summary vengeance taken 
by Jehovah upon the wicked. And the epithet 
"everlasting," here as elsewhere, when applied 
to the instrument of punishment, most naturally 
implies that the punishment, the suffering, is to be 
perpetual. 

Much more significant is 2 Thess. i. 9, already 



408 DEATH, — THE SPIRITUAL SENSE. 

quoted, where there is threatened a destruction 
which is not only " eternal," but which has for its 
result that it separates men " from the presence of 
the Lord, and from the glory of his power." The 
punishment is thus designated as consisting prom- 
inently in the perpetual exclusion of the wicked 
from the presence of Christ. If the punishment 
were to be extermination, such a description would 
be without point, and, indeed, almost without 
meaning. The verse finds its parallel in Matt. 
XXV. 41,- Luke xiii. 27, 28, where the King is 
represented as saying to the wicked at the judg- 
ment, " Depart from me ; " and the reason given 
for the weeping, and gnashing of teeth, is, that they 
are "thrust out;" and, in the antithetic descrip- 
tion of the blessedness of the righteous, that it is 
to consist largely in their being "ever with the 
Lord" (1 Thess. iv. 17). We are aware that 
some commentators explain the verse under con- 
sideration as meaning " destruction [which issues] 
from the presence of the Lord." The possibility 
of such an interpretation may be admitted; but 
it is less simple and natural than the other. The 
ellipsis thus assumed is harsh and without parallel, 
and, if assumed, makes the verse little more than 
a mere repetition of what is said in the previous 
verse. 

But we will not enlarge. Enough has been said 
to show that a natural, unforced interpretation 
of the Scriptures finds there the doctrine of a 



INFLUENCE OF PREPOSSESSIONS. 409 

future and perpetual punishment of the impeni- 
tent clearly taught. The methods by which the 
obvious meaning is evaded are such, that it may be 
safely said that the doctrine could not have been 
set forth so plainly but that some mode would 
be found of explaining it away. It is difficult to 
see how the doctrine could have been stated so as 
to carry conviction to the minds of those who show 
such a persistent determination not to accept it. 
The mood with which the question is approached 
is well indicated by Mr. Pettingell's language 
(p. 22): "If it [the Bible] does [teach the doc- 
trine of eternal misery], — well, we will try to 
believe it ; for the Bible is the word of God : but 
it will need to be made very plain." It needs 
little prophetic insight to conjecture what result 
will be reached by one who enters upon his 
investigation in this spirit. 



410 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS 



CHAPTER XIV. 

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 

IN conclusion, we touch upon some considera- 
tions of a general character bearing upon the 
questions which have been discussed. 

1. The advocates of the doctrine of conditional 
immortality are entirely arbitrary in their interpre- 
tation of figurative language. Whenever a literal 
interpretation runs across a favorite or fixed belief, 
then they reject it ; when it favors their belief, they 
adopt it : but there seems to be no other principle 
of interpretation followed. Thus Dr. Ives, in ac- 
cordance with his materialistic conception of man, 
understands the " fire," so often spoken of as the 
instrument of divine vengeance, as literal fire. 
According to him, the wicked are to be literally 
burned up. In elucidating this doctrine he ap- 
peals (p. 162) to Ps. cxii. 10, which he calls " an 
inspired comment " on Christ's language concern- 
ing the burning of the tares : " The wicked shall 
see it, and be grieved; he shall gnash with his 
teeth, and melt awayT The last words are Itali- 
cized by Dr. Ives, and the impression made that 



ABUSE OF LITERAL INTERPRETATION. 411 

they describe the result of being put into the fur- 
nace of fire. But the word here rendered " melt " 
(^masas^ is never used in the sense of being con- 
sumed, or even melted, in fire. Twice it is used 
in the literal sense of melt; viz., of the manna 
"when the sun waxed hot " (Exod. xvi. 21), and 
of wax " before the fire " (Ps. Ixviii. 2). Most fre- 
quently it is figuratively applied to the " heart ; " 
as Josh. ii. 11, "Our hearts did melt" (i.e., we 
became discouraged). Twice it is used in highly 
poetic language of the mountains : Isa. xxxiv. 3, 
"The mountains shall be melted with their 
blood;" Mic. i. 4, "The mountains shall be 
molten under him [Jehovah]." These examples 
show that the word properly means to become 
liquid, as is still more clearly indicated in Josh, 
vii. 5, where it is said,' " The hearts of the people 
melted, and became as water." When, now, we 
turn to Ps. cxii. 10, we observe that ouIt/ here is 
the verb rendered " melt away : " there is no 
reason for adding " away " here. The verse ex- 
presses only extreme unhappiness, and in no way 
suggests extermination of existence. So much for 
the " inspired comment." 

But Dr. Ives, in adducing biblical proof of the 
fact of a literal fire which is to extinguish the 
ungodly, quotes such passages as Jer. xxiii. 19, 
"Behold, a whirlwind of the Lord is gone forth 
in fury, even a grievous whirlwind ; it shall fall 
grievously upon the head of the wicked : " and 



412 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 

liuke XX. 18, " Whosoever shall fall upon that stone 
shall be broken ; but on whomsoever it shall fall 
it will grind him to powder " (pp. 164, 167). But 
how is destruction effected by a whirlwind proof 
of a literal fire ? If a man is to be ground to 
powder, how can he be put to death by being 
burned up? We may add, that in other places 
we read that God's enemies will be punished 
by a sword (Deut. xxxii. 41) ; that they are to be 
dashed in pieces like a potter's vessel (Ps. ii. 9) ; 
that they shall wither as the green herb (Ps. 
xxxvii. 2) ; that they shall be consumed with the 
pestilence (Deut. xxviii. 21) ; that they shall be 
crushed by a falling tower (Luke xiii. 5). It 
cannot be objected by Dr. Ives that these passages 
from the Old Testament refer to temporal destruc- 
tion, — the first death ; for the passages from the 
Old Testament quoted by him, which threaten fire 
as the agent of destruction, have the same appear- 
ance of referring to the first death. We ask him, 
then. Are all these descriptions to be understood 
literally ? This is, of course, impossible. He saj^s 
plainly (p. 167), that we are not to understand 
Luke xiii. 5 to mean that the impenitent Jews 
were all to be killed by a falling tower. We pre- 
sume that he thinks (though he expresses no 
positive opinion) that the worm of Mark ix. 48 is 
also not to be regarded as a literal worm. No; 
none of these material and earthly instruments of 
guffering and punishment are to be taken literally 



ARBITRARY LITERALISM. 413 

but one / Having decided that this one — fire — 
is literal fire, it becomes, of course, necessary to 
decide that the others are to be understood 
figuratively. If we ask by what right the fire is 
declared to be literal fire, the answer is, that we 
must follow the great law of the literal and the 
figurative. We must exhaust the possibility of 
understanding the descriptions literally before we 
resort to a figurative interpretation. It is possible 
to suppose that literal fire will be the agent of 
extermination in the future life : therefore we 
must believe that literal fire will be employed. 
But, if we know enough about the nature of the 
spiritual body and the future mode of existence 
to know that literal fire may be used as a means 
of extinction, may we not equally well assume 
that literal worms and swords and pestilences and 
whirlwinds may be so employed also ? Certainly 
this may be assumed of any of them as well as of 
fire. But (we are told) they cannot be employed 
together with fire : therefore the fire is literal, and 
they are figurative I 

Mr. White, while also insisting on understanding 
the fire literally, attempts to soften the doctrine 
by saying that "the fire threatened may not be 
the less spiritual because ' material ; ' for material 
LS not far from spiritual anywhere. It is ultimately 
God who is the ' consuming fire ; ' and nothing is 
'^'ained by dismissing the idea of an external agent 
jf destruction, if there still remains to be con- 



414 GENEEAL OBSERVATIONS. 

fronted Him [He?] who is said to 'burn up the 
chaff with unquenchable fire'" (p. 353). We 
hardly know what to say to such a method of in- 
terpretation. So far as we can see, every thing 
called figurative can thus be declared to be 
literal. God is called a rock, a sun, a shield, a 
tower. But "material is not far from spiritual 
anywhere ; " and may not God be literally a rock, 
only a " spiritual " one ? The worm, too, may be a 
literal one, but yet spiritual. In fact, all these ap- 
parently sensuous representations of future things 
may thus be affirmed to be strictly literal, if we 
will only assume that the material and the spiritual 
are substantially one. Any thing, in fact, may be 
called spiritual, except — death. 

2. This leads us to observe that the zeal of the 
annihilationists for a literal interpretation of bibli- 
cal language exhausts itself on the one point of 
insisting that "life" and "death" must be under- 
stood literally. Any thing else may freely be taken 
figuratively in order to save the literalness there, 
and every thing must be understood literally which 
confirms the literal interpretation of those terms. 
"We will not here repeat the proof that the assumed 
literal sense of those terms ("existence " and "non- 
existence," or " loss of existence ") is not the literal 
sense, after all. What we now emphasize is the fact 
that every thing which seems to conflict with the 
doctrine assumed to be taught by these terms is 
freely explained away by resort to figurative inter- 



ONE-SIDED LITERALISM. 415 

pretations, even though these are of the most vio- 
lent sort. We have illustrated at length how Dr. 
Ives makes every thing bend to his so-called literal 
definition of " life " and " death." AYhile the Bible 
says that Samuel spoke to Saul, Dr. Ives reveals 
to us that this is not to be understood literally, 
but that it was the woman or some accomplice 
who was speaking. While the Bible tells us that 
the rich man was in torment in Hades, Dr. Ives 
tells us that none of the statements in the parable 
are to be understood literally. While the Bible 
calls death a " sleep," Dr. Ives informs us that this 
is an emphatic mode of describing non-existence. 
Every thing, in short, which asserts or implies that 
death does not put an end to existence, is explained 
away by any process, violent or even absurd, pro- 
vided it is necessary in order to maintain the doc- 
trine that death is the end of existence. Life is 
defined as existence : but then we are told that at 
death one's life returns to God, — is kept by him, 
and restored at the resurrection ; i.e., while death 
is the end of life, this same life, so far from being 
annihilated, is preserved! The Bible represents 
regeneration as a new life. Of course this life can- 
not mean existence. What, then, shall be done in 
order to save the literalness of " life " ? Mr. Hud- 
son and Mr. White accomplish the object by every- 
where assuming the figure of prolepsis ; that is, 
while the Bible in all sorts of ways represents the 
new life as a present thing, these expositors dis- 



416 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 

cover — what no one would dream of who had no 
pet theory to support — that the Bible only means 
that the regenerate are going at some future time to 
exist. But not even this will answer; for that 
would imply that they do not now exist. Hence 
"life" and "live" are transformed into "eternal 
life " and "live forever; " and so, by this monstrous 
distortion of simple language, the literal sense of 
"life" is maintained! Mr. Pettingell, however, 
finds a different way of escape. With him, too, 
"life " means "existence ; " but the new life begun 
at the new birth he admits to be a present reality : 
it is immortality begun. But how, then, can " life " 
mean " existence " ? Is it meant, that, after a man 
has existed, say, twenty years, he begins to exist 
again? Apparently. And so the one man has two 
existences running along side by side ! What Mr. 
Pettingell implies, but fails to say explicitly, Mr. 
Litton (" Life or Death," p. 218) directly asserts 
in speaking of the new birth : " A new birth im- 
plies a new existence." To such a pitch of non- 
sense can men attain in the attempt to explain the 
Bible "literally." 

3. Akin to the allegation that "life " and "death" 
must always be understood in their literal sense is 
the assumption that these terms cannot be supposed 
to have a meaning in the New Testament mate- 
rially different from what they have in classical 
Greek. We have already referred to Mr. White's 
argument on this point. He says (p. 366), " When 



ARGUMENT FROM CLASSICAL USAGE. 417 

Luke wrote a gospel for the churches planted by 
Paul in Achaia or Macedonia or Asia Minor, or 
when St. Paul wrote two letters to the Corinthians 
recently converted from heathenism, who can im- 
agine, except one who has a theory to obey, that 
these compositions were set forth in words which 
were employed in senses previously unknown to 
the readers at Corinth, Philippi, Athens, or Thes- 
salonica?" It might have no weight with Mr. 
White to ask him in reply, how it could be that 
the Christians of succeeding generations to whom 
the Greek language continued to be the vernacu- 
lar tongue came to understand the Greek words 
used by Paul and Luke in a different sense from 
the classical. Yet here is certainly food for reflec- 
tion. But, if this could somehow be accounted 
for, we still must ask whether Mr. White will 
deny that Greek words, when they became used 
as the medium of communicating Christian truth, 
were often transformed in meaning, so that no 
equivalent can be found in classical usage. Where, 
for example, in classical Greek, can the words fater 
and lmio% (" father " and " son ") be found bearing 
the peculiar sense which belongs to them in the 
New Testament, where they describe the spiritual 
relation of God to men as regenerated, as possess- 
ing the " spirit of adoption," and introduced into 
" the household of faith " ? Jupiter is indeed often 
called the father of gods and of men, but only in 
the general sense of producer, lord, or protector. 



418 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 

NoAvhere in heathen writers can any thing be found 
analogous to Paul's description in Rom. viii. 15, 
16. Yet this is the fundamental element in the 
New-Testament conception of the fatherhood of 
God. Or to take a still more striking example : 
nowhere in classical Greek is the word pneuma used 
in the sense which it almost uniformly has in the 
New Testament. Here is one of the most fre- 
quent and important words of the Bible, describ- 
ing one of the persons of the Trinity and the 
highest attribute of humanity, and bearing a sense 
which is perfectly familiar to us, and which, we 
must assume, was equally intelligible to the first 
Christian readers of the original books of the New 
Testament; and yet it is indisputable that the 
word, as compared with its classical sense, under- 
went a change greater than the one which is 
alleged to have taken place in the case of the 
words " life " and " death," notwithstanding Mr. 
White says that it is "evident that old words 
would not be used in new and strange senses, 
such as making death (thanatos or phthora) stand 
for endless misery, without full warning from such 
conscientious correspondents " (p. 367). What 
would Mr. White say to one, who, following his 
example of getting his definition of the New-Tes- 
tament thanatos (death) from Plato, should in like 
manner go to the classical writers for his definition 
of the New-Testament pneuma^ and, because he 
finds that there it uniformly has the lower sense 



AN ARGUMENT THAT PROVES TOO MUCH. 419 

of wind or breath or vitality^ should infer that it 
cannot possibly have any essentially different sense 
in the writings of John and Paul ? Dr. Ives, and 
some others, have, indeed, thus defined the New- 
Testament pneuma. But Mr. White is too intelli- 
gent and too candid to do so ignorant or dishonest 
a thing ; and yet the argument he uses respecting 
the New-Testament meaning of "death" is no 
more plausible or cogent than would be the sup- 
posed one respecting pneuma. 

4. An objection much urged against the current 
interpretation of the biblical doctrine is, that a 
truth of such tremendous practical importance to 
men as that of the endless punishment of the 
wicked must needs have been taught, not only 
more distinctly in the New Testament, but equally 
also in the Old Testament, and to the earliest 
members of our race. Plausible as such an objec- 
tion may sound, it is a sufficient reply that it 
weighs equally against other doctrines. Why was 
the doctrine of the future life in general so ob- 
scurely taught in the Old Testament that many 
excellent and learned Christians are constrained 
to believe that it was not taught at all? Why 
was not Christ incarnated, and salvation through 
him made known, as soon as Adam fell ? Surely 
here we have b. truth of most momentous conse- 
quence to the spiritual- and eternal welfare of men, 
the clear revelation of which was delayed as long 
as the doctrines concerning the future life. The 



420 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 

objection against the doctrine of endless punish- 
ment now under consideration, if valid, would 
oblige us to conclude that the common interpreta- 
tion of the New-Testament doctrine of salvation 
through Christ is false, or else that all which he 
came to communicate concerning himself as the 
light and life of the world was equally well known, 
not only to the ancient Jews, but also to all the 
heathen from the earliest times. An argument 
which logically leads to this result must be con- 
demned as proving too much, and therefore prov- 
ing nothing. 

5. Great stress is laid by the advocates of the 
doctrine of conditional immortality upon the prac- 
tical effect which is to be anticipated from preach- 
ing it both in Christian and heathen nations. We 
are told that men will not believe so fearful a 
doctrine as that of endless misery, and that this 
is the reason why so few of the heathen and 
Mohammedans are converted to Christianity. 
Glowing pictures are presented of the great suc- 
cess which will probably attend Christian missions 
as soon as the doctrine of conditional immortality 
shall be boldly and universally proclaimed. The 
ground on which this prediction is founded is the 
disagreeableness of the doctrine of eternal punish- 
ment. The heathen, we are told, will not adopt a 
religion which declares their ancestors to be des- 
tined to endless suffering, though they may be 
expected to embrace one which only declares those 
ancestors to be annihilated. 



I 



ADAPTING TEUTH TO HEATHEN TASTE. 421 

It is obvious to remark, in the first place, that 
even though it be true that the doctrine of anni- 
hilation would gain more and more ready ad- 
herents among heathen and unbelievers than that 
of eternal punishment, yet that would not prove 
the latter to be false, and the former to be true. 
Paul was not in the habit of accommodating his 
preaching to the tastes of his auditors, so as to 
avoid making it a stumbling-block to the Jew, and 
foolishness to the Greek. It does not require 
much knowledge of human nature to perceive that 
men love the agreeable rather than the true. 
There is hardly a characteristic doctrine of Chris- 
tianity which is not disagreeable to many men, or 
even to the most of men, when it is addressed 
to an impenitent and hardened heart. The doc- 
trine of native depravity, of the necessity of re- 
generation, of salvation through the atonement 
of Christ alone, — these have met with most bitter 
opposition, as being intrinsically unreasonable and 
repulsive. But shall we therefore abandon them, 
or modify them so that they shall be conformed 
to the tastes of the natural man ? All this argu- 
ment and appeal addressed to missionaries and 
missionary societies, resting on the supposed ad- 
vantage which would be gained in preaching the 
gospel to the heathen by substituting the doctrine 
of conditional immortality for that of eternal pun- 
ishment, is entirely out of place'. If the doctrine 
in question is trtie, then of course it ought to be 



422 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 

preached, even though the apparent success of 
missions should be retarded by preaching it ; if it 
is false, then that fact, and not the offensiveness 
of the doctrine, should be made the reason for not 
preaching it. 

But, in the second place, even these alleged 
advantages are only hypothetical. The proposed 
doctrine, as a practical power, has not been tested. 
The early Christians did not gain their successes 
by preaching the doctrine of annihilation. No 
more striking proof that eternal punishment had 
been commonly preached can be found than the 
fact, that even Origen, while privately believing 
in the ultimate restoration of all men, yet preached 
the doctrine of eternal punishment, for the reason 
that it was currently accepted, and that God him- 
self had appointed the fear of eternal punishment 
as a salutary doctrine. The success of Francis 
Xavier in the East was not due to his rejecting 
the doctrine of eternal punishment ; for he did not 
reject it. If it was due to his skilful accommo- 
dation of Christianity in other respects to the 
notions of his auditors, or to his appeal to the 
sensuous tastes of the heathen, is this to be re- 
garded as an argument in favor of the method 
employed? Mr. White alludes (p. 517) to the 
Buddhist notion of nirvana, — the notion that the 
highest good to be desired and hoped for is the loss 
of individual being. But surely this weighs little 
in favor of his doctrine. Here we have a system 



I 



MR. WHITE'S FALLACIOUS REASONING. 423 

of religion, which, in a comparatively short time, 
gained more votaries than Christianity has gained 
in nearly nineteen centuries ; and yet (according 
to Mr. White's representation, not assented to by 
all, that nirvana means the absolute loss of indi- 
vidual existence) it taught, that for the unbeliever 
there was nothing to expect but an endless series 
of wearisome transmigrations, while the highest 
good to be striven after by the faithful Buddhist 
was ultimate extinction of being. In other words, 
the worst that Mr. White holds out to the unbe- 
liever is the best which Buddhism offers to the 
believer ; and yet this system gained unparalleled 
triumphs over the millions of India and China. 
How is the success of Mohammedanism to be 
accounted for? The doctrine of eternal punish- 
ment for the infidel was as fixed a dogma in that 
system as in the Christian ; and yet how rapidly 
it gained adherents ! In view of such patent facts, 
that must be pronounced shallow reasoning which 
seeks to account for the slow progress of Chris- 
tianity by the offensiveness of its doctrine of future 
punishment. In reply to this, it can only be said 
(and this is virtually said by Mr. White) that the 
present age is more enlightened than the former, 
and that what once was blindly accepted will be 
accepted no longer. But it is no new thing to 
hear this sort of argument. The French infidels 
of the last century thought the world too enlight- 
ened to continue to hold any of the characteristic 



424 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 

doctrines of Christianity; but somehow the Chris- 
tian Church seems to hold its own in spite of the 
repeated predictions of its overthrow. And as to 
Christian missions in the East, that which mission- 
aries have most to contend against is the influx 
of the works of English and French infidels, in 
which the very foundations of all revealed religion 
are assailed. 

6. But a more radical objection brought against 
the doctrine in question is, that it is inherently 
unreasonable and incredible. We must teach a 
doctrine of future punishment, Mr. White says, 
"which men cannot put aside, saying, 'It is too 
horrible to be true^^^ (p. 495). " There is no true 
doctrine which will not bear thinking of" (p. 465). 
" The more earnestly it [the doctrine of an eter- 
nal hell] is studied, the less it is believed in, 
whether by clown or philosopher, wise or unwise " 
(p. 489). " There can be no surer indication of the 
deep popular disbelief than this, — that the habit- 
ual language of profane cursing and swearing, which 
nominally is derived from the orthodox doctrine 
of damnation, runs from the lips of the utter ers 
without the faintest sign of faith in the reality 
of what they imprecate on each other's heads " 
{Ibid.'). " The general alienation from Christiani- 
ty of the scientific, literary, and laboring classes 
of Europe, so far as it is speculative, is the final 
result of a scepticism which began with a denial 
of the endless torment of the lost" (/5^t?.). Fur- 



THE ARGUMENT FROM REASON. 425 

thermore, he adduces the testimony of a converted 
Roman Catholic, to the effect, that, so far as his 
experience had indicated, "the dogma of hell . . . 
did no moral or spiritual good, but rather the 
reverse. ... It appealed to the lowest motives 
and the lowest characters. ... It never (except- 
ing in the rarest cases) deterred from the commis- 
sion of sin " (Preface, p. viii). In short, the allega- 
tion is, that the doctrine is contrary to the reason 
and moral sense of enlightened men; that it is 
practically injurious so far as it is believed ; and 
that, therefore, it is generally, and ought to be 
universally, rejected. 

Some of the reasoning here involved is certainly 
not very conclusive. The proof of " the deep pop- 
ular disbelief " of the orthodox dooirine of future 
punishment, derived from the imprecations thought- 
lessly uttered by profane men, would equally 
prove their " deep disbelief " of the existence of 
God, whose name is uttered " without the faintest 
sign of faith in the reality of" the Being whose 
name is thus profaned. Shall we therefore begin 
to abandon the doctrine of God, so as to conform 
our doctrinal system to the popular conception as 
manifested in the language of swearers ? 

The statement that the prevailing scepticism of 
tlie age began with a denial of the doctrine of 
eternal punishment is merely an assertion unac- 
companied with proof, and much more easily made 
without proof than furnished with it. It is ccr- 



426 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 

tain, that, in sceptical works attacking the foun- 
dations of Christianity, very little prominence is 
given to the doctrine in question. The scepticism 
of the present day is essentially of a materialistic 
or pantheistic type. Its fundamental principle is 
that of the uniformity and necessity of natural 
phenomena. Its great bugbear is the miraculous 
and the supernatural. It is less apt to question 
the quality, than to deny the fact, of a revelation. 
If it admits the doctrine of any future existence 
of man, it finds no special trouble in believing in 
his eternal existence. If it holds to any sort of 
retribution, it inclines to one that comes by natu- 
ral law, and works by an inexorable, impersonal 
necessity. If, in respect to the matter of future 
retribution, we. are to aim to adapt the Christian 
system to the taste of these sceptics, one of the last 
things to be done is to set before them the doc- 
trine of a miraculous bodily resurrection of the 
dead, followed by a miraculous plunging of them 
into a material fire which is to burn up the body 
and extinguish the soul. Yet this is the substitute 
which Mr. White offers them. 

It is true, that, after stoutly advocating this doc- 
trine, he himself seems to be somewhat dubious 
about it, and suggests the possibility that mental 
sufferings may be the only positive inflictions pre- 
ceding the extinction (p. 855). And Mr. Hudson, 
more disinclined to believe in physical sufferings 
as the doom of the unbeliever, says, " Who knows 



DISAGREEMENT OF ANNIHILATIONISTS. 427 

that in the hour of dissolution the thought may 
not wander through the eternity that eludes his 
grasp, and reckon against the burden of his guilt 
the eternal weight of glory that was offered in his 
ransom ? " (" Debt and Grace," p. 423.) Mr. Pet- 
tingell declines to express an opinion whether the 
fire is literal or not. Dr. Ives, however, is sure 
that there is to be a literal fire, literally burning 
the sinner up. Mr. Hudson's view, which at first 
sight seems the most tender-hearted, is, if intelligi- 
ble at all, in some respects the severest. If, as he 
says, the lost soul may, " by some law of its nature, 
so transcend the laws of time and space as to 
apprehend a certain boundlessness of its woe" 
(/5«c?.), then this means, that, in that one moment 
in which the sinner at once awakes and expires, 
he suffers an eternity of woe. If this is con- 
ceivable and possible, then how is it any better than 
an actual eternity of suffering ? If an eternity of 
suffering can be concentrated into a point, then 
(always supposing that any thing intelligible is 
thus expressed) it is equivalent to the same eter- 
nity of suffering spread out. But, not to dwell on 
this point, the noteworthy fact is, that the various 
annihilationists are unable to agree upon any 
thing respecting the ultimate fate of the wicked, 
except that their existence is to come to an end. 
In their expositions of the doctrine, sometimes 
"eternal" is understood to mean "eternal," at 
other times only " long," and at other times eter- 



428 GENEEAL OBSERVATIONS. 

nal in regard to the effect. Some of tliem believe 
" fire " to be literal fire, and others something else ; 
some of them threaten to the sinner a long period 
of suffering, and others only a mome'nt of it; some 
of them believe in a future probation, and others 
do not ; some of them make the punishment con- 
sist in the annihilation, and others in the physical 
pain preceding it, or in the mere mental anticipa- 
tion of it ; some of them make both the first and 
the second death mean extermination, others make 
the first death mean only the death of the body, 
and others still make "death" sometimes denote 
spiritual obduracy. 

But the fact of special significance is, that the 
fundamental doctrine of the annihilationists con- 
cerning death, when viewed in the light of reason, 
is inherently self-contradictory. What, according 
to them, is the real penalty of sinf^ If they »-:.ay it 
is simply the termination of existence, then the 
objection at once occurs that this of itself cannot 
be called punishment^ since it is something of 
which, from the nature of the case, the sinner him- 
self, strictly speaking, has absolutely no experience. 
It is to him no pain : it is nothing to him ; for, the 
instant the penalty is inflicted, he becomes nothing 
himself, and cannot feel it. A man cannot be 
punished who does not exist. As an influence for 
other beings, or as a means of ridding the universe 
of moral evil, this kind of retribution may, on 
rational grounds, be advocated; but, as a penalty 



IN WHAT CONSISTS THE PENALTY OF SIN? 429 

known and felt by the guilty person himself, it is 
absolutely nothing. If, however, the penalty is 
said to consist in the anticipation of annihilation, 
then it does not consist in anniMlation^ but in the 
antecedent dread of it. So, if the sinner is saiJ 
also to undergo physical pain or remorse of con- 
science before passing into nothingness, the real 
penalty here also consists in the pain, not in the 
termination of it. In fact, annihilation in this 
case becomes an act of mercy. That which. the 
Bible threatens as " the wages of sin " becomes 
simply the termination of the payment of the 
wages. Should it be said, that, so long as the fear 
of annihilation produces unhappiness, this itself is 
retribution enough, even though the annihilation 
is not felt as an evil when it comes, we reply : If 
annihilation is, on the whole, dreaded, then this 
implies that existence is preferred to non-exist- 
ence. It implies, that, however much unhappiness 
may be experienced, there is not so much of it, but 
that, on the whole, the sinner enjoys existence too 
much to be willing to give it up. But this surely 
is not the condition which the annihilationists un- 
derstand to be meant in the passages which speak 
of "indignation and wrath, tribulation and an- 
guish," the burning fire, the gnawing worm, and 
the " wailing, and gnashing of teeth. ' Men will 
sometimes endure much when there is a hope of 
relief and happiness following ; but if this hope is 
cut off, and existence is nothing but wretchedness, 



430 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 

. nothing could be more to be longed for by the 
inhabitants of hell than extinction of being. To 
such persons, therefore, neither annihilation nor 
,the anticipation of it is any punishment. Our 
Saviour's declaration, that the reprobate shall go 
into " everlasting punishment^''' cannot possibly be 
reconciled with the annihilationist's doctrine. Dr. 
Ives (p. 171) constructs this syllogism: "The 
punishment of sin is death: but that death is 
eternal; therefore the punishment is eternal." 
Not to insist that it is a misuse of the word " eter- 
nal " to apply it to an event which is not eternal 
in itself, it is sufficient to observe, that, according 
to Dr. Ives himself, the real punishment is the 
consuming fire; and the termination of this suffer- 
ing by annihilation is called by him "an act of 
infinite mercy." Detith, therefore, on his own 
showing, is not the punishment of sin. 

Mr. White, feeling this difficulty, relieves him- 
self by the simple process of giving a convenient 
definition of the word "death." It is, he says 
(p. 377), " one of the most ordinary usages of 
speech to convey the compound ideas of suffering 
and final cessation of life by each one of the very 
terms [" death," &c.] under examination ; " and 
he proceeds to substantiate this statement by ap- 
pealing to such phrases as "painful death," "vio- 
lent death," "miserable destruction," &c. Now, 
while it is true that we sometimes use the word 
" death " so as to include in it the conception of 



IN WHAT CONSISTS THE PENALTY OF SIN? 431 

the immediate concomitants of death, 5^et Mr. 
White's statement is utterly incorrect. We not 
only speak of a painful death, but with equal pro- 
priety of a painless or a happy death. Are we to 
conclude that the word " death," therefore, con- 
veys the "compound ideas of" happiness "and 
the cessation of life " ? It is obvious that the 
notion of suffering, or the opposite, is expressed 
in all these cases by the adjective^ not the noun. 
The same reasoning as that of Mr. White would 
warrant us in saying that the word " life " conveys 
the compound ideas of suffering and existence, 
because we often speak of a " miserable life," an 
"unfortunate life," &c. This attempt, therefore, 
to make the word "death" itself designate, to- 
gether with annihilation, the sufferings which pre- 
cede and cause it, is quite fallacious. Is it not 
significant, also, that the Bible, when it speaks of 
suffering as the wages of sin, never speaks of it as 
issuing in death ? 

Annihilationists thus show themselves incom- 
petent to settle, or even to agree upon, the 
simplest principles underlying God's punishment 
of sin. On the fundamental questions, whether 
the sinner is punished before death or by death, 
and whether death is a natural termination of 
existence or a positive and penal infliction, they 
contradict one another, and each one contradicts 
himself. On the more subordinate questions, what 
kind of suffering, and how much of it, the sinner 



432 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 

Tinclergoes, their answers are equally indeterminate 
and self-contradictory. The only thing on which 
they are thoroughly agreed is, that somehow, at 
some time, and for some reason, impenitent sinners 
will cease to exist. The tendency of the doctrine 
is to make little or nothing of retribution con- 
sciously experienced as the merited reward of 
guilt. The practical effect of the advocacy of it 
will be that men will accept it, if at all, in its least 
offensive form ; viz., that of mere annihilation, un- 
accompanied with retributive pain. The impelling 
motive which leads to the advocacy of the doctrine 
is everywhere, and often avowedly, not primarily 
a desire to inquire, without bias, what the Bible 
says, but a deep dislike of the doctrine of eternal 
punishment, and a determination to explain it out 
of the Bible if possible. We must be excused 
if we feel constrained to withhold our confidence 
from those who thus begin their investigations 
with a determination to make the Bible teach a 
certain negative doctrine, and whose positive 
enunciations of it are marked by such confusions 
and self-contradictions. 

We are aware that to expose the inconsistencies 
and defectiveness of the arguments brought against 
the doctrine of eternal punishment is not a demon- 
stration- of the truth of the doctrine. But it is 
important in this way to show how incompetent 
the human reason is to settle such an immense 
problem as the one in consideration. It is im- 



UNREASONABLE REASONING. 433 

portaiit to insist that it is from divine revelation, 
and not from unaided reason, that those ruling 
conceptions of the divine character are derived, 
which, it is alleged, are inconsistent with the end- 
less punishment of the disobedient. But if this 
revelation gives, as it does, a vastly brighter pic- 
ture of God's love and compassion than the 
merely natural reason ever dared to picture to 
itself, this veiy fact should lead us to accept, ac- 
cording to its natural import, whatever the revela- 
tion has disclosed respecting the doom of the 
finally impenitent. It is essentially unfair and 
unreasonable to use one portion of the revelation 
as a ground for rejecting another. It should espe- 
cially be remembered, that the clearest and most 
emphatic utterances concerning the endless punish- 
ment of the wicked come from the very Saviour 
who came to reveal and execute the loving pur- 
poses of God. 

It is natural to attempt to defend philosophically 
the doctrine which is derived exegetically from, 
the Bible. Hence many have undertaken to show 
that the doctrine of endless punishment not only 
is, but must be, true. And it often seems as if 
such men rested the whole case on the verdict 
of simple reason concerning the intrinsic desert of 
sin. Consequently, any flaw in these reasonings 
is caught up as a striking proof of the weakness 
of the cause which is defended by so poor argu- 
ments. For example ; the metaphysical argument, 



434 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 

formerly employed, that sin deserves au infinite 
punishment, because committed against an infinite 
God, is justly condemned as fallacious, and even 
foolish. But it does not follow that the doctrine 
is refuted when this defence of it is proved to 
be unsound ; nor would the refutation of any 
number of fallacious arguments of human inven- 
tion demonstrate that the doctrine is not revealed 
as true. The doctrine of the trinity, or the doc- 
trine of the atonement, can as easily be over- 
thrown as that of eternal punishment, if we are 
to discuss them purely on metaphysical grounds. 

It is not our purpose to weigh the several argu- 
ments, more or less plausible, which have been 
resorted to in justification of the divine treatment 
of sin. One only we may notice in passing, since 
it is, perhaps, now more prominently put forward 
than any other ; viz., the argument derived from 
the tendency of sinful habits to strengthen them- 
selves, so that the sinner continues to sin in the 
,future life, and so continues to deserve punish- 
ment. This argument is certainly not overthrown 
by the dogmatic assertion of Mr. Constable (" Du- 
ration and Nature of Future Punishment," p. 154), 
that the lost in hell are not " capable of sinning," 
because, being denied all the benefits of law, they 
are under no obligation to law. According to 
this, Satan, whom Mr. Constable (p. 210) calls 
"that arch-fiend," and all the demons who with 
him are obliged to " look forward to their being 



TENDENCY lOF SIN TO FIX ITSELF. 435 

destroyed in hell" (^Ihid.'), since they are deprived 
of the benefit of law, must likewise be incapable 
of sinning. But, if so, why call the poor Devil an 
" arch-fiend " ? If those who are undergoing pun- 
ishment are incapable of sinning, it must be be- 
cause they have lost all moral sense, and sense of 
responsibility; and, if so, they are incapable of 
feeling the justice of their own punishment, — ^ a 
monstrous assumption. 

Nor is this argument refuted by the allegation, 
that, according to the Bible, sinners suffer in the 
future world for the sins done in the present. It 
is true that the present life is represented as a 
probation, and judgment is said to follow death 
(Heb. ix. 27) ; but it is nowhere said that eter- 
nal punishment is inflicted on men merely for the 
deeds done in the body. Nor is there any thing 
to be found inconsistent with the supposition that 
the probation here is a probation in which charac- 
ter is formed ; so that the future life is not merely 
a state in which one is punished or rewarded for 
the things done in this life, but is a state in which 
one finds himself fixed in the character formed 
during his probation, so that the continued indul- 
gence of sinful propensities continually merits and 
receives punishment. Such a view does not ex- 
clude the doctrine that positive punishments also 
are inflicted for the sins of this life. It must be 
borne in mind, however, that this argument should 
not be presented as a positive and independent 



436 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 

demonstration of the doctrine of endlels punish- 
ment, but merely as a reasonable and probable 
hypothesis, which at least is adequate to rebut the 
objections urged on rational grounds against the 
current doctrine. 

We do not profess to be able to demonstrate 
from reason either the reality or the justice of 
eternal punishment ; but quite as strongly do we 
maintain that reason cannot disj)rove its reality or 
justice. We prefer to take the ground, that the 
question is one which unaided reason is utterly 
unqualified to settle. That persons who have in- 
curred a penal sentence should themselves assume 
the part of judges concerning the justice of their 
sentence is certainly not an intrinsically proper 
thing; yet this is what is • practically done by 
those who undertake to determine how much of 
punishment is due to those who deliberately and 
persistently refuse to submit to the Almighty 
Ruler. We are all convicts. Many are pardoned 
on condition of repentance. But all either receive 
or deserve condemnation. Yet it is those crimi- 
nals who assume to pass judgment on the ill desert 
of sin. The impossibility of their deciding accu- 
rately might be argued from the intrinsic impossi- 
bility of any man's being able to adjudge to 
spiritual guilt its proper penalty. This is some- 
thing surely which only Omniscience is adequate 
to decide. But what would in any case be beyond 
human capacity becomes simply audacious folly 



INCOMPETENCY OF REASON SHOWN. 437 

when the judgment is passed by those who have 
themselves incurred the guilt. We do not need 
even to rest the case here, though this ought to be 
sufficient to make us modest in regard to such a 
matter. It is easy for the reason itself to demon- 
strate the utter incompetency of reason to deal with 
this question. Thus: How many, even among 
those who are professedly religious men, habitu- 
ally suffer more distress of mind in consequence 
of the consciousness of displeasing God by sinful 
feelings than in consequence of the misfortunes 
and blunders, which, even with no fault of theirs, 
expose them to the loss of temporal comforts, or 
of the respect of men? Is it not notorious that a 
mere unintentional breach of etiquette, involving 
a temporary loss of the esteem of some human 
being, often causes far more mental uneasiness 
than the thought of spiritual impurity, of selfish- 
ness or uncharitableness, of resentment or malice, 
or of any other form of sin, while yet the person 
knows that the latter is infinitely more fitted to 
awaken trouble of mind than the other ? Nothing 
is easier than for a man thus to convict himself of 
being altogether wrong as to his feelings with 
respect to the comparative fitness of sin and dis- 
comfort to cause unhappiness. But it is in these 
feelings that men's practical views of the evil of 
sin disclose themselves. And is it possible that 
our theories can be depended on, when our prac- 
tical judgments are lo demonstrably wrong ? 



438 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 

If we really know any thing about the future 
retribution of sin, our knowledge must come from 
a supernatural source. The human reason and 
conscience may ratify or condemn certain forms 
of doctrine respecting the matter, but can of 
themselves establish nothing. If all men were 
absolutely sinless, and if all were agreed as to 
what sin would deserve, their judgment might be 
of some value. But, as men are, they are blinded 
and partial ; absolutely incapable of passing judg- 
ment on a matter of such a character. Moreover, 
they cannot agree among themselves what the 
proper retribution of sin is ; the general fact being, 
that, the worse a man is, the less severe is his judg- 
ment of the ill desert of sin. Manifestly we are 
left in total darkness concerning the real facts 
of future retribution, unless we get light from 
divine revelation. And here, more, if possible, 
than anywhere else, does it behoove us humbly 
and reverently to inquire. What saith the Scrip- 
ture? — not. What do we think it ought to say? 
nor. What do we wish it to say? And in the 
investigation of the biblical doctrine of retribu- 
tion, if sober interpreters disagree in their inter- 
pretations of its import, it is manifest, that, since 
we are naturally inclined greatly to underrate the 
evil of sin, the presumption is in favor of the 
severer doctrine. In other words, any effort to 
tone down the meaning which the Bible conveys 
to the ordinary reader, any straining of the obvi- 



THE BIBLE THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY. 439 

ous significance of its language, practised for the 
sake of avoiding the more disagreeable form of the 
doctrine, must be presumed to be false exegesis. 

It does not follow from this that the most ex- 
treme form in which the doctrine of future pun- 
ishment can be presented is, therefore, the most 
correct. We do not defend the indiscretions of 
those who have undertaken to portray in savage 
literalness and particularity what the Bible teaches 
only in general and figurative language. It is 
easy, by culling out the grosser and more repulsive 
pictures which have been drawn of the horrors 
of hell by Christian writers of different periods, 
to seek to make tlie impression that the doctrine 
of eternal punishment implies the unending con- 
tinuance of just that kind and degree of physical 
torture which these men have been led to describe 
damnation as consisting in. But, on the other 
hand, it is doing such men the grossest injustice 
to represent them as inventing a hell for the 
gratification of their own malicious passions, or 
as enjoying a savage pleasure in the sufferings 
of other men. There must always be a strong 
presumption that no one — certainly no Christian 
— would advocate the doctrine of endless punish- 
ment, unless convinced that a fair interpretation 
of the Bible leads to it ; or if some, irrespective 
of the Bible, are convinced that it is most rational 
to hold the doctrine, it is certainly not a mere 
brutal delight in contemplating the misery of the 



440 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 

lost that recommends the doctrine to them. Yet 
this is virtually the" accusation brought by Mr. 
Pettingell (pp. 210, 211) against many of those 
who hold the doctrine he opposes. He tells of a 
painting in Rome which represents purgatory, and 
its wretched victims writhing in agony. " But," 
he adds, " more prominent than these victims, or 
the devils that are tormenting them, are the stokers 
standing by, and with long poles stirring the fire. 
The eager satisfaction they take in their pious 
work manifests itself in their countenances, and 
in the earnestness with which they address them- 
selves to it. The only drawback to their complete 
happiness would seem to be the fact that these 
fires are not ' unquenchable and everlasting,' but 
only purgatorial, and these wretched victims may 
yet find relief. But there is no such drawback to 
the happiness of those who advocate the doctrine 
of endless torment, and who seem determined, if 
it were possible, to make it true, whether they can 
prove it or not." Those who disagree with this 
author in their views of retribution are thus plainly 
charged by him with advocating a certain doc- 
trine, not because they are honestly convinced 
that it is taught in the Bible, nor because they are 
persuaded of its truth by any valid arguments 
whatever, but because, in spite of evidence to the 
contrary, they wish it to be true. Moreover, the 
reason why they wish it to be true is alleged to 
consist in a fiendish delight in the assurance that 



ORTHODOXY NOT FIENDISHNESS. 441 

men are going to suffer endless torment. That 
is, they are accused of flagrant insincerity and 
dishonesty ; and the motive for such dishonesty is 
found in a demoniacal ferocity that delights in 
torture for torture's sake. If any thing more is 
wanting to complete the picture of a demon, we 
do not know what it is; and this clergyman, who 
bewails the lack of tenderness in those who dissent 
from his views, presents this picture as a fair de- 
scription of his fellow-Christians who advocate 
the doctrine which he denounces. If we did not 
suppose that Mr. Pettingell wrote in too much 
heat of spirit to be conscious of the real import of 
his words, we should feel constrained to suggest 
to him that there is an inhumanity which is worse 
than that which finds delight in witnessing, or 
even inflicting, physical torture, — the inhumanity 
of one who scatters slanderous aspersions broad- 
cast over the land. 

It is indeed to be desired that those who treat of 
this subject should avoid all undue severity, as weU 
as all levity, and manifest a spirit in keeping with 
the solemn import of the theme. But an exegetical 
or scientific investigation of the theme, especially 
when the discussion partakes of a controversial 
nature, should not be expected to be character- 
ized by the same display of tender feeling which 
might be appropriately required in a homiletio 
discourse ; and it is a grievous wrong to make the 
positiveness, or even the vehemence, with which 



442 GENEEAL OBSERVATIONS. 

some advocates of the doctrine of eternal punish- 
ment combat the shallow, perverse, or outrageous 
exegesis of their opponents, an evidence that they 
have no sense of the awfulness of the doctrine 
which they defend. There is a tenderness which 
shrinks from severe truths and disagreeable duty : 
it is no merit in a man to possess it. There is also 
a tenderness which can face repulsive scenes, and 
give credence to unwelcome truths, for the sake 
of saving men from present suffering or degrada- 
tion, and from the greater evil of the world to 
come : it is well for all to have it. 

Let it also be borne in mind, that those who be- 
lieve in the doctrine of endless punishment, hold, 
no less firmly than any others, that God is a God 
of love and of justice. Whatever he does is right; 
whatever punishment he inflicts, he inflicts in spite 
of his desire to bless. But we hold that it is not 
the province of sinful and narrow-minded men to 
decide for him what he may or may not do. It is 
enough to know that the whole purpose of his 
revelation of himself is to draw men towards him 
in love and service ; that he promises unspeakable 
good to those who forsake sin, and walk in the way 
of holiness ; and that upon those who wilfully re- 
ject his offers of grace he puts the responsibility 
of their own doom. That doom will be just, what- 
ever it is. Neither the Bible nor reason pro- 
nounces the retribution of all the lost to be 
equally severe. The obstinately wicked will be 



GOD IS JUST. 443 

more severely punished than the less guilty (Luke 
xii. 47, 48). God is just: the Judge of all the 
earth will do right. But, while this very proposi- 
tion implies that in some sense the Deity is under 
obligation to immutable laws of righteousness, it 
must be insisted, on the other hand, that no one 
but God is perfectly qualified to determine what 
those laws require in the divine government. If, 
therefore, he has given us glimpses of his retribu- 
tive dealings with men in that world which is 
opened to us only by his revelation, it belongs to 
us to say, not that such things are not just, and 
therefore cannot be, but that they must be just, 
because they are the doings of Him whose judg- 
ments are true and righteous altogether. 



TOPICAL INDEX. 



Abraham, the promise made to, 

320. 
Abraham's bosom, 105. 
Adam, the death threatened 

^nst, 337-343, 366, 367. 

Aidnios, the meaning of, 388-394. 

Annihilation, as argued from 

the death of Christ, 360-366. 

double, 202, 368. 

as a doctrine for missionaries, 

420^24. 
not synonymous with death, 

86, 102-138, 368, 382-409. 
apparent proof of, in the Old 

Testament, 160-166. 
as a punishment, 428-432. 
the term, how used, 76. 
Annihilationists, different 
schools of, 77. 
disagreement among, on fu- 
ture penalty, 428-432. 
Atonement, Mr. White on the, 
360-366. 

Barnes, Rev. Albert, on Isa. 

Ixvi. 24, quoted, 407. 
Beasts and men, distinction 

between, 23, 53, 91. 
called nephefh, 17, 64. 
Bios, meaning of, 227. 
Blood, as representing the life, 

136, 192, 301. 
alleged alxsence of, in the 

resurrection-lK)dy, 192. 
Bodily organs denoting mental 

qualities, :»-32, 6,'t, 67. 
Body, being absent from the, 127. 



Body, biblical terms for, 77-79. 
prominence of the, in the 

future life, 261. 
resurrection of the, 86, 185- 

187, 208, 217-220. 
and soul contrasted, 93, 356- 

358. 
and spirit contrasted, 36, 40, 

75-101. 

Christ, death of, as a dying to 
sin, 210. 
death of, as a proof of annihi- 
lation, 360-366. 
his descent to Hades, 178. 
testimony of, on future pun- 
ishment, 433. 
resurrection of, 186, 205, 285. 
the author of resurrection, 206. 
Conscience, biblical terms for, 

29, 54, 56. 
Consciousness not suspended at 

death, 1(59, 172. 
Constable, Rev. H., his defini- 
tion of " life," 228. 
on Isa. Ixvi. 24, 403. 
on Matt. XXV. 46, 389. 
on moral responsibility, 434. 
on Satan, 434. 
on Sheol, 150. 
Corpse called nephesh, 17, 63. 

Davis, Rev. Thomas, on " dying 

unto sin," 272-274. 
Death, abolition of, 376-378. 
as threatened to Adam, 337- 
341, 366. 

4J5 



446 



TOPICAL INDEX. 



Death, why not called eternal, 

8D1-394. 
not the end of existence, 86, 

102-138, 369-409. 
figurative senses of, 263-275. 
flexible sense of, 378-382. 
as a future experience, 328. 
literal sense of, 228, 246, 251, 

311, 3i9, 351, 360, 414, 430. 
longed for by Paul, 123-126, 

352. 
as a punishment, 330, 336, 354, 

369, 382, 430, 431. 
the second, 340, 351. 
as a consequence of sin, 329- 

331, 338, 345, 34«, 381. 
of the soul, 12, 20, 81, 350, 356. 
spiritual sense of, defined, 322, 

327, 375, 378. 
Mr. White on the meaning of, 

323-325,360-366,430. 
Destruction of sinners, 332, 333, 

359, 392, 408. 
Dobney, Mr., his definition of 

" life," 228. 
Dying unto sin, 209-211, 269-274. 

Ecclesiastes, significance of its 

testimony, 162. 
Elijah and Moses, 120, 121. 
Emotions, biblical terms for 

the, 14, 25, 28, 34, 37, 53, 
Enoch, translation of, 151, 165. 

and Elijah, 121, 203. 
Eternal, meaning of the term, 
388-394. 
biblical terms for, 370, 388-393, 
397. 
Eternal life as a future pos- 
session, 305-308. 
as a present possession, 304. 
Eternal punishment, 387-408. 
a doctrine of revelation, 433, 

438. 
coarse statements of the doc- 
trine of, 439. 
doctrine of, as related to mis- 
sions, 420. 
animus of the opponents of 

the doctrine of, 409, 432. 
as related to the sins of this 
life, 435. 
Existence not terminated at 
death, 102-138. 



Existence not synonjnnous with 
life, 228-230, 239-1^42, 244, 
249-251, 278-280, 303, 309- 
312, 416. 
the term cannot be used preg- 
nantly, 244, 309. 

Ezekiel's vision of the dry 
bones, 219. 

Fatherhood of God, 417. 

Figurative language, test of, 
3-7. 

Fire as an instrument of pun- 
ishment, 386, 395, 403-407, 
410^14, 426, 427. 

Flesh, biblical use of the term, 
50, 78, 79, 87, 99, 192, 288. 

Gehenna, 180, 404. 
God, fatherhood of, 417. 
justice of, 442. 
spoken of as living, 255, 260. 
passibility of, 362-365. 
Grave , as translation of ' * Sheol," 

143. 
Greek, classical and biblical, 
356-358, 416-419. 

Habits, as distinct from per- 
sons, 196. 
Hades, 105-108, 150, 175-180. 
Happiness as a synonyme of 

life, 253, 258-260, 279, 307, 

309-312. 
Heard, Rev. J. B., on the word 

hhayyim (life), 225. 
on the soul and spirit, 43-47, 

57. 
Heart, biblical terms for, 28, 31, 

32, 53. 
Hell, 143, 175, ISO, 404. 
alleged popular disbelief in, 

424. 
Hengstenberg on Ps. xlix. 15, 

153. 
Hhayyim, definition of, 224-226. 
Hopkins, President Mark, on 

the soul and spirit, 43. 
Hudson, Mr. C. F., on the 

meaning of " life," 299, 301, 

302. 
on natural mortality, 335, 346. 
on the penalty of sin, 427. 



TOPICAL INDEX. 



447 



Identity of the present and the 

future body, 187, 197. 
Image of God, man made in, 51. 
Immortality of the soul, 75, 334- 

Int<^llect, biblical terms for, 15, 

2<;, 2t>, 32, 36, 5o. 
Intermediate state, Old-Testa- 
ment doctrine of, 112-117, 

139-166. 
New-Testament doctrine of, 

102-112, 167-184. 
Interpretation, principles of, 

1,2. 
Dr. Ives's rule of, 3-10. 
Ives, Dr. C. L., his definition of 

death, 188, 231, 430. 
on Dan. xii. 2, 401. 
on Eccles. xii. 7, 90. 
his law of interpretation, 3- 

10. 
on Isa. Ixvi. 24, 403. 
on John iii. 36, 3»4. 
on John v. 24, 25, 326. 
on John vi. 58, 374, 375. 
on John xi, 25, 26, 369-374. 
on the abuse of language, 82. 
on Lazarus and the rich man, 

102-109. 
his definition of life, 228-241, 

320. 
on natural mortality, 341-343. 
on penal fire, 410-413, 427. 
on Paul's desire to depart, 

124-127. 
on regeneration, 284-288. 
on the resurrection, 109, 183, 

189-199, 2»4, 326, 402. 
on the Old-Testament doc- 
trine of the resurrection, 

214-219. 
on the raising of Samuel, 112- 

116. 
on Rev. xiv. 10, &c., 395. 
on Sheol, 143-150. 
on the sleep of death, 171-174. 
his doctrine of the soul, 58-74. 
on the souls under the altar, 

135-137. 
his definition of spirit, 61, 71. 
on the spirits of tue just made 

perfect, 130-135. 
on Christ's language to the 

thief, 122. 



Ives, Dr. C. L., on the trans- 
figuration, 117-121. 
on the cloud of witnesses, 129. 

Josephus on the resurrection, 

112. 
Judgment, relation of the, to 

the present life, 4:35. 
Just men made perfect, the, 

130. 
Justice of God, 442. 

Kardia, definition of, 53. 
Kidneys as seat of thought, 

&c., 31. 
Kingdom of God both present 

and future, 118. 
Knobel on Isa. Ixvi. 24, quoted, 

406. 

Language, laws of, 65-70, 82. 
used, not given by inspira- 
tion, 69. 
Lazarus and the rich man, 87, 

102-109, 168, 174, 177. 
Leh, definition of, 28. 
Lewis, Dr. Tayler, on the mean- 
ing of hhayyim, 224. 
Life, biblical terms for, 13, 22, 
24,33, ;J5, 39, 223-227, 256, 283. 
denoting continuance of life, 

24«>, 312-315, 393. 
not synonymous with exist- 
ence, 228-2;;0, 23!)-242, 244, 

249, 278-280, ;}03, 309-312. 
figurative senses of, 213, 242, 

247, 252-263, 316-319. 
as a future possession, 305-308, 
literal sense of, 221-223, 242, 

250, 284, 288, 301, 414. 

in the Old Testament, 312-321. 
restored at the resurrection, 

93, 198, 246. 
as a reward, 306, 319. 
and soul, connection between, 

15, 28:?. 
spiritual sense of, 276-321. 
spiritual sense of, defined, 155, 

277, 298, 300, 303, 307, 321, 

415. 
the tree of, 336, 341-344. 
Mr. Hudson on, 29*>-.K)3. 
Dr. Ives on, 8, 9, 228-241. 
Mr. PettingeU on, 288-296. 



448 



TOPICAL INDEX. 



Life, Mr. White on, 243-247, 295- 

2!>7,;J01,.'J0!)-;312. 
Literal Bensc of Scripture, 3-7, 

168, 414. 
Litton, Mr. E. F., on the new 

life, 416. 

Man, Dr. Ives's definition of, 8, 

(«), 197, 2'Mi. 
Mat(!riality of the soul, alleged, 

68, (>7, <X), 148, 195, 201, 234, 

2;{7, 2(51. 
refut(i(l, 77-101. 
Mind, biblical terms for, 15, 20, 

20, m, 65. 
Missions and the doctrine of 

eternal punishment, 420. 
MohammedaniHm and eternal 

punishincsnt, 423. 
Moral charactfir, H(!atof, biblical 

torniH for, 20, 28, .'}7, 53. 
rcHponHlbility after the close 

of probation, 4154. 
Mortality of man, natural, 334- 

348, 307, 431. 
of the soul, 12, 20, 81, 82, 350. 
Moses and Elijah, 120. 

Necromancy, 113, 110, 139. 
NophcHh, meaning of, 13-22, 60, 
05-71, 223,2:50. 
Enfflish e(iuivalont of, 22. 
and rtKihk compared, 27. 
New Testament and classical 
Greek, .35(5-358, 41(5-419. 
on the intermediate state, 107- 

184. 
names for " soul." &c., 3.'5-57. 
Nirvana, the Buddhist doctrine 

of, 422, 423. 
NoHH, definition of, 56. 
N'ithamah, definition of, 22. 

Old Testament, argument from, 

for annihilation, 1(50-1(5(5. 
on eternal punishment, silence 

of, 419. 
on the intermediate state, 139- 

KKJ. 
Dr. Tves's ex(!es8ive use of, 59. 
on tlio resurrection, 213-220. 
names for * ' soul," &c., in 13-32. 
Organism, alleged resurrection 

of, 190. 



Organism, Dr. Ives's synonyme 
for soul, 11, 68, 01-(55, W, 2.'i0- 
232. 

Orlgen on eternal punishment, 

422. 

Parable, definition of, 103. 
Paradise, 122, 179. 
Pa.sHil)iiity of God, 302-305. 
Paul's desire to depart, 124-127, 
.352. 
vision of Paradise, 97. 
stybi of nrcacliing, 421. 
Penalty of sin, what it is, 202, 

.382-:.58(5, 428-432. 
"Perfect," biblical use of the 

term, 131-i;n. 
Person, bil)lical term for, 10-21, 

.'54, 40, 50, 290. 
PersoTuii j)ronoun, argument 
from the use of, 83-87. 
peri[)hrasis for, 18. 
Pettingell, Kev. J. H., on Dan. 
xii.2, 401. 
on tlie doctrine of eternal mis- 
ery, 40i>. 
on th(5 word hhaypim, 224. 
on Tsa. Ixvi. 24, 407. 
on tlie natural mortality of 

man, 3.38-341. 
on the new life, 288-295, 410. 
on psj/che and zoe, 283, 284, 

288 
on Ilev. xiv. 10, &c., .397-400. 
spirit, soul, and body, 52, 289. 
his sev<!re language, 440. 
Plato'H "PhuMlo," Mr. White's 
argjunent from, 35(5-,'}5!), 418. 
PnetiiiKi, UK^aning of, .'54-.38, (51, 
223, 220, 289, 418. 
whctlicr an cHsential part of 

man, 41, 53, 291,25)2. 
and psyche companKl, 39-63. 
Profane swearing, Mr. White 

on, 424. 
Prohipsis, rhetorical figure of, 
2(55, 272, 279, 297, 323-326, 
415. 
Psyche, meaning of, 33, 39-63, 

22: t, 2H;{, 2K4, 288. 
Punisliment d(!(ined and de- 
scribed, :{82-:580, 428-432. 
double, according to annihila- 
tionism, 202. 



TOPICAL INDEX. 



449 



Punishment, eternal, 387-408. 

eternal, weak art^umcnts for, 
no disproof of it, 4'Xi. 

ei«rnal, silenco of Old Testa- 
ment on, 419. 

in the intermediate state, 107» 
m), 180. 

both natural and positive, 331 , 
43."). 

reason on the doctrine of, 424- 
4.'{8. 

and sin identified, a30. 
Purgatory, Mr. PettingoU on a 
picture of, 440. 

Qualitative and quantitative 
senses of " life, 247. 

Reason and the doctrine of pun- 
ishment, 424-4.18. 
Regeneration, 41, 100, 20I)-213. 
the l>cginning of a new life, 

281-2M, 4ir). 
and sonship, 417. 
Dr. Ives on, 284-288. 
Mr. Pettingell on, 288-295. 
Mr. White on, 295-2ir7. 
Religious character, biblical 

tonus for scat of, 20, :J7, 53. 
Rpjyhaim, Ww, l.-^T-K^O. 
Resurrection, the, 8<), 1¥), 186-220. 
of the l)ody, 185-187, 2.34. 
of Christ, 18.3, im, 205. 
through Christ, 20(). 
Christ and the 8a<lducee» on 

the, 105)-112, 1G8, 185, 2()1. 
relation of, to future exist- 
ence, 183, .3,'i.3. 
Dr. Ives on the, 120, 189-199. 
Josephvm on the, 112. 
the Old Testament on the, 213- 

220, ;rji. 

time of the, 202-2<)."5. 

of the wicJtcjl, 20<>. 
Retribution, 2<rJ, XH), 4.32. 
Ruaiih, definition of, 24-27, 61, 
223. 



Samuel, the raising of, 112-117, 
415. 

Satan, Mr. Constable on, 4.34. 

ScepticiBm, character of mod- 
em, 426. 



Self-consciousness, biblical term 

for. 30, 47. 
Shcol, biblical doctrine of, 141- 
143, 155, 158, 1(H, 174. 
Mr. Constftblo on, 150. 
Dr. Ives on, KXJ, 14.V150. 
Sin its own avenger, 330, 434. 
as the cause of death, 335, 338, 

:W5, :^8, .'{81. 

dying unto, 20{>-211, 209-274. 
eternal, 390. 
as an infinite evil, 434. 
erroneous practical judgments 

of, 437. 
as self-perpetuating, 4.34. 
Sleep of death, the, 140, 109-176, 

217, 415. 
Soul, biblical terms for the, 13, 

34. 
and botly contrasted, 93, 366. 
death (mortality) of the, 12, 

20, 81,82, 35(J. 
Dr. Ives's definition of, 11,68, 

6{), 77. 
indestructibility of the, 76. 
life of the, 254, 201, 2(52. 
meaning of the term, (k). 
Mr. Pettingell on the, 290. 
popTilar notion of the, 80. 
and spirit, distinction be- 
tween, 31^53, 289. 
Souls under the altar, the, 136- 

137. 
Spirit, biblical terms for, 23, 24, 

.34. 
and body contrasted, 36, 40, 

76-101. 

divine and human, blended, .38. 

Dr. Ives's definition of, (Jl, 71. 

Mr. Pettingell on the, 289-292. 

Spirits in prison, the, 40, 128. 

Spiritual botly, the, 18(J, 203, 208, 

men why so called, 38, 48, 60. 
r<fSurre(;tlon, 209-213. 
SufTeringasdenoted by "death," 

38;^.'i8<}, 4:k). 

Thief on the cross, the, 122. 
Time and et<!rnity, Mr. Pottin- 

gell on, ;«W. 
Tonnent, eternal, 394-401. 
Transfignration, the, 117-121. 
Tree of life, the, 336, 341-344. 



450 



TOPICAL INDEX. 



Trichotomy of man, 43-52, 289. 
Tropical meanings of " death," 
263-275. 
of " life," 252-263. 

Unconsciousness of the dead, 
alleged, 161, 169, 172. 

Union of Christians with Christ, 
209-213. 

Universality of the resurrec- 
tion, 199. 

Visions, character of, 97, 118- 

120. 
Vitality as a synonyme of life, 

222, 242, 246, 263, 275, 294. 

Webster, Noah, his definition of 
death, 228. 
his definition of life, 221. 
"Weiss, Dr., on the pneuma, 41. 
Witnesses, the cloud of, 129. 
White, Rev. Edward, on the 
literal sense of death, 246, 
352, 430. 
on the death of Christ, 360-366. 
on the spiritual sense of death, 

323-325. 
his definition of *' destroy," 
359. 



White, Rev. Edward, on Paul's 
use of " kill " and " death," 
268-270. 

on Isa. Ixvi. 24, 404. 

on the meaning of "life," 243- 
247, 301, 309-312. 

on Matt. XXV. 46, 389. 

on natural mortality, 336-338. 

on penal fire, 413, 427. 

his argument from Plato, 356- 
359. 

on eternal punishment, 389, 
400, 422-424. 

on regeneration, 295-297. 

on the suspension of annihi- 
lation, 353-355. 

on the undying worm, 387, 404. 
Whiton, Dr. J. M., on " seonian 
life," 247-249. 

on the meaning of " eternal," 
392. 

on Rev. xx. 10, 396. 
Will, biblical terms for, 28, 37. 
Worm, the undying, 386-388, 
403-407. 

Xavier, Francis, 422. 

Zoi, meaning of, 226, 283, 284, 
290. 



I]SrDEX 



BIBUCAL PASSAGES REFERRED TO. 













PAGE 


Gen. i. 24 17 


i. 26, 27 




. 






8 


i.27 . 




. 






. 51 


i. 30 . 




. 






. 223 


ii.5 . 




, 






8 


ii.7 . . 


7,8,11,22,23,49,64, 




224,226 


ii.l7 . 


330, 337, 342, 343, 366 


ii.l9 . 


17 


ii.23 . 








. . 78 


iii. 19 . 








12, 85, 237 


iii. 22. 




231 


,3 


36, 341, 343 


iv. 10 . 








. . 136 


iv. 13. . 










. 331 


V.24 . 










151, 165 


vi.l7. 










. . 24 


viL15 , 










24,224 


vil.22 








2: 


I, 24, 226 


Tiii.l. 










. . 24 


ix.4 . 










. . 192 


be. 10, 12 


,11 


5,16 






. . 17 


xiiL17 










. . 320 


xiv. 5. 










. . 157 


XV. 15 










. . 140 


XV. 20 










. . 167 


xviil.5 










. . 29 


XX. 3 . 










.265,323 


xxiil. 1 










. . 226 


xxvi. 35 










. . 25 


xxvil.41 








29 


xxvil.46 








. . 225 


XXViii.1] 


[ 








. . 140 



PAGB 

Gen. XXX. 2 69 

xxxiv. 14 402 

XXXV. 18 21 

xxxvii. 35 141,142 

xlii. 13, 32 151 

xlii. 18 313 

xlii. 21 14 

xlii. 38 142 

xliii. 30 31 

xliv. 20 151 

xliv. 29, 31 142 

xlv.27 25,260 

xlvi. 15 16 

xhn.27 62 

xhii. 9 225 

xlvii. 18 78 

xlvii. 19 266 

xlix. 6 67 

Exod. i. 6 16 

i. 14 225 

1.19 257 

vi. 16 226 

vil. 23 29 

ix.21 29 

X.17 265 

xii.33 265,323 

XV. 9 15 

XV. 18 239 

xvi. 21 411 

xxii. 4 241 

xxviii. 3 30 

xxix. 13 31 

451 



452 



BIBLICAL INDEX. 



Exod. XXXV. 10, 
xxxvi. 1, 2 . 

Lev. iii. 4, 10, 15 
iv. 2 . 


25 

i 


3, 


14, 


PAGE 

. . 30 
. 30 
. 31 
16,62 
. 27 
. 62 
. 16 
. 241 
. 241 
254, 2G0 
. 254 
. 241 

192, 223 
. 62 

136, 192 
. 28 
. 62 
. 140 
. 17 
. 62 
. 12 
. 25 
. 17 
. 62 
. 26 
. 17 
. 17 
. 62 
. 217 
. 62 
. 16 
. 142 
. 62 
. 78 
. 14 
. 12 
. 17 
. 331 
. 20 
. 320 
. 157 
. 157 
62, 226 
. 62 
14,28 
. 367 

. . 14 

. . 192 
. 28 
. 15 
. 140 
. 22 
. 412 


Deut. XXX. 15 
XXX. 19 . . 
XXX. 19, 20 . 
XXX. 20 . . 


PAGB 

316 

. . . .224,316 

313 

299 


V. 1 . . 
v.4 . . . 
vii. 18 . 
xiii. 14 . 
xiv. 4 . . 
xiv. 6. . 
xiv. 52 . 




xxxii. 14 . 
xxxii. 22 . 
xxxii. 40 . 
xxxii. 41 . 
xxxii. 47 . 
xxxiv. 9 . 
Josli. i. 5 . 


31 

. . . .142,175 

249 

412 

. . . .299,314 

26 

... . 226 


xvi. 20 . 


ii. 11 . . . 


411 


xvii. 11 . 


iv. 14 . . . 


225 


xvii. 12 . 


V. 8 . . . 


257 


xvii. 14 . 
xix. 17 . 


vi. 17. . . 


242 

411 


XX. 6 . . 


X. 40 . . . 


22 


XX. 27 . 
xxi. 11 . 


xi. 11, 14 . 
xii 4 . . . 


22 

]57 


xxii. 11 . 


xiii. 12 . . 


157 


xxiv. 17 . 


XX. 3 . . . 


17 


xxvi. 16 , 

Num. V. 2 . 

V. 6 . . 


Judg.ii. 10 . 
V. 15 . . . 
viii. 3 . . 


140 

29 

25 


V. 14 . . 


ix. 2 . . . 


78 


vi. 6, 11 . 


xiii. 23 . . 


153 


ix. 6, 7, 10 
ix. 13 . . 


XV. 19 . . 
xvi. 16 . . 


. . 25,224,257 


xii. 8 . . 


xvi. 25 . . 


28 


XV. 28 . 
XV. 30 . 


xvi. 30 . . 
xix. 5 . . 


.... 20,62 
29 


xvi. 30, 33 
xvi. 38 . 


ISam. i. 13 . 
i. 15 . . . 


29 

25 


xix. 7 . 


i. 26 . . . 


62 


xxi. 5 . 
xxiii. 10 . 


ii.6 . . . 
ii. 33 . . . 


142 

15 


xxxi. 28 . 




62 


xxxii. 23 

XXXV. 30 

Deut. i. 8 . 


xxii. 22 . . 
xxiv. 5 . . 
XXV. 37 . . 


17 

29 

.... 265 


ii. 11, 20 . 




29 


iii. 11, 13 
iv.9 . . 
iv. 15 . . 


xxviii. 3-25 
xxviii. 15 . 
XXX. 12 . . 


112 

164 

25 


vi. 5 . . 
X.16 . . 
xii. 20 . 


xxxi. 10. . 

2 Sam. i. 23 . 

iv 9 . . . 


78 

225 

.... 62 


xii. 23 . 
XV 9 . . 


V.18 . . . 
xii. 23 . . 


157 

141 


xviii.6 . 
xviii. 11 . 
XX. 16 . 
xxviii. 21 


xviii. 14. . 
xviii. 18. . 
xix. 13 . . 
xix. 28 . . 


28 

226 

78 

. . . .266,323 



BIBLICAL INDEX. 



453 



PAGE 

2 Sam. XX. 19 266 

xxii. 6 142 

xxiv. 10 29 

lKingsii.6, 9 142 

ii. 10 140,141 

iii. 9 30 

lii.26 31 

viii.60 31 

X.5 25,72 

ad. 34 226 

xi. 37 14 

xii.33 29 

XV. 24 141 

XV. 29 23 

xvii. 17 22 

xvii. 21, 22 21 

xix.4 13 

xxi. 6 25 

xxi. 15 225 

2 Kings i. 2 257 

iv. 40 264 

viii. 8,9 257 

ix.24 28 

xix- 35 405 

XX. 3 28 

XX. 7 257 

2 Chron. xxi. 19 ... . 31 

xxxii. 26 28 

Keh.i.3 402 

ii. 2 28 

iv. 4 402 

v. 7 30 

ix. 37 78 

Esth. ix-31 18 

Jobi. 8 2<) 

ii.4 316 

ii.5 78 

iii. 13 141,164 

iii. 17. ........ 164 

iii. 20 14,25,225 

iv. 15, 16 89 

vU. 9 142 

vii. 11 25 

vii. 17 20 

X. 1 225 

X.21, 22 164 

xi.8 142 

xii.2 266,275 

xii. 3 30 

xli. 10 24 

xiv.7-12 216 

xiv.8 264 

xiv. 12 164 



Job xiv. 13 

yiv. 14, 15 

xiv. 22 . 

XV. 35 . 

xvii. 13 . 

xvii. 16 . 

xviii. 4 . 

xix. 26 . 

XX. 3 . . 

XX. 25 . 

xxi. 7 . . 

xxi. 13 . 

xxiv. 19 . 

xxvi. 4 . 

xxvi. 5 . 

xxvi. 6 . 

XX vii. 8 . 

xxviii. 22 

xxix. 13 . 

XXX. 25 . 

xxxii. 2 . 

xxxii. 8 . 

xxxii. 18 

xxxiv. 10, 34 

xxxiv. 14, 15 

xli. 21 
Ps. ii. 7 . 

ii. 9 . 

iii. 2 . 

vi. 3 . 

vi. 4 . 

vi.5 . 

vii. 2 . 

vii. 5 . 

vii. 9 . 

vii. 10 

ix. 17. 

X.3 . , 

xi. 1 . 

xi. 5 . . 

xiii. 2 , 

xiii. 3 , 

xvi. 7 . 

xvi. 8 . 

xvi. 8-11 

xvi. 9 , 

xvi. 10 19, 

xvi. 10, 11 

xvii. 9 . 

xvii. 13 . 

xvii. 14 . 

x^'ii. 16 . 

xviii. 5 . 



59, 



142,143 



VAGS 

142 

215 

40() 

32 

142 

142 

62 

88 

26 

78 

317 

142 

142 

23 

157, 159 

142, 160 

13 

160 

28 

14 

62 

23,26 

26 

30 

24,29 

13 

285 

412 

19, 63 

19 

19 

142, 161 

19 

19 

32 

28 

142 

19 

19 

19 

16,19 

141 

32 

156 

182 

28,67 

153,177 

165, ul8 

. 19 

. 19 

. 225 

. 217 

142. 143 



454 



BIBLICAL INDEX. 



PAGE 

Ps. xix. 7 19 

xix. 14 29 

xxi. 4 240,315 

xxi. 6 241 

xxii. 20 19 

xxii. 26 260 

xxii. 29 19 

xxiii. 1, 2 151 

xxiii. 3 19 

xxiii. 6 226 

xxiv. 4 20 

XXV. 1 20 

XXV. 13 20 

xxvi. 2 32 

xxvii. 12 15 

XXX. 3 142 

XXX. 5 318 

XXX. 9 12, 101 

xxxi. 10 318 

xxxi. 17 142 

xxxii. 2 26 

xxxii. 11 ..... . 28 

xxxiv. 12 315 

XXXV. 9 14 

XXXV, 17 226 

xxxvi. 9 ...... 315 

xxxvi. 10 28 

xxxvii. 2 412 

xxxviii. 4 331 

xl. 8 31 

xl. 11 31 

xl. 12 331 

xlii. 2 14 

xlii. 6 63 

xlv. 5 28 

xlix. 3 29 

xlix. 7-9 152 

xlix. 7-14 153, 155 

xlix. 10 153 

xlix. 14 ... . 142, 150, 265 
xlix. 14, 15 . . . 142, 143, 152 

11. 10 26, 28 

11. 12 26 

liii, 1 29 

Iv. 15 142 

Ivii. 1 14 

Ixiii. 3 225, 318 

Ixvi. 9 225 

lxviii.2 411 

lxix.32 260 

Ixxi. 6 31 

Ixxi. 20 259 

Ixxiii. 3 317 



FAOB 

Ps. Ixxiii. 17 154 

Ixxiii. 21 32 

Ixxiii. 24 154 

Ixxiv. 8 29 

Ixxviii. 8 26 

Ixxxiv. 2 44 

Ixxxv. 5, 6 259 

Ixxxvi. 13 142, 143 

Ixxxviii. 3 14, 142 

Ixxxviii. 10 . . 157, 159, 161 

Ixxxviii. 11 159 

Ixxxviii. 15 318 

Ixxxix. 48 142 

xc. 12 30 

cii. 24 164 

ciii. 4. 31,226 

civ. 29 24 

cvi. 15 114 

cviii. 1 67 

ex. 1 182 

ex. 6 78 

exii. 10 410,411 

exv. 5 250 

cxv. 17 101 

exvi. 3 142 

exix. 25, 40, 88, 149, 154, 

156,159 318 

exix. 144 315 

cxix. 175 261 

exxviii. 5 226 

exxxiii. 3 315 

cxxxviii. 7 259 

exxxix. 8 142 

cxxxix. 14 15 

exli.7 142 

cxliii. 4 25 

exliii. 11 259 

cxlvi. 4 . . . .128, 161, 164 

Prov. i. 12 142 

ii. 2 30 

ii. 18 157 

iii. 2 314 

iii. 18 319 

iii. 22. 299, Sn 

iv. 4 313 

iv. 10 314 

iv. 13 314 

iv. 22 258,299 

V. 5 142,143 

vi. 23 314 

vi. 32 30 

vii. 2 313 

vii. 7 30 



BIBLICAL INDEX. 



455 













PAGB 1 


Prov. vii. 27 142 | 


viii. 5 . 










. 30 


.viii. 35 . 










.299,314 


ix. 4, 16 . 










. 30 


ix.6 . . 










. 315 


ix.ll. . 










. 314 


ix. 18. . 










142, 157 


X. 13 . . 










. 30 


X. 16 . . 










. 314 


X.21 . . 










. 30 


xi. 13 . . 










. 20 


xi. 19. . 










. 315 


xi. 29. . 










.^ 30 


xii. 11 . 










." 30 


xii.28 . 










. 315 


xiii.14 . 










315, 319 


xiv. 10 . 










. 18 


xiv. 27 . 










315, 319 


xiv.30 . 










. 226 


XV. 11 . 










. 160 


XV. 11, 24 










142, 143 


XV. 24 . 










. 315 


XV. 32 . 










. 30 


xvi. 2 . 










. 26 


xvi.18 . 










. 26 


xvi. 19 . 










. 26 


xvi. 22 . 






2 


42, 


315, 319 


xvii. 18 . 










. 30 


xviii. 8 . 










. 32 


xviii. 21 . 










. 225 


xix. 2 . 










. 15 


xix.8 . 










. 30 


XX. 27 . 










23,32 


XX. 30 . 










. 32 


xxi. 16 . 










. 157 


xxi.21 . 










. 315 


xxii.4 . 










. 315 


xxii. 18 . 










. 32 


xxiii. 2 . 










. 15 


xxiii. 14 . 










142, 143 


xxiii. 15. 










. 30 


xxiii. 16 . 










. 32 


xxiv. 80. 










. 30 


xxvi. 22 . 










. 32 


xxvii.20 










. 142 


Txix. 11. 










. 26 


XXX. 16 . 










. 142 


Eccles. iii. 19 










. 162 


iii. li>-21 










91, 1(>3 


iii. 21. . 










. 24 


vi.8 . . 










163,318 


vii. 8 . . 










. 26 


Til. 9. . 










. 25 



Eccles. vii. 19 

vii. 22, 25 
. viii. 5 

viii. 8 

viii. 11 . 

viii. 12, 13 

viii. 15 . 

viu. 16 . 

ix. 1-3 . 

ix. 3 . . 

ix. 5 . . 

ix. 6 . . 

ix. 10. . 

xii. 7 . . 

xii. 14 . 
Cant. viii. 6 
Isa. V. 14 . 

vi. 10. . 

X. 7 . . 

X. 18 . . 

xiv. 4-20 

xiv. 8 . 

xiv. 9 . 

xiv. 9-11 

xiv. 9, 15 

xiv. 10 . 

xiv. 11 . 

xiv. 15 . 

xiv. 19 . 

xxvi. 14 

xxvi. 17, 18 

xx\'1. 19 . 

xxviii. 15, 18 

xxix. 24 . 

xxxi. 3 . 

xxxiii. 14 

xxxiv. 3 

xxxiv. 6 

xxxviii. 9, 21 

xxxviii. 10, 18 

xxxviii. 11, 18 

xxxviii. 18 

xxxviii. 18, 19 

xlii. 5 . 

xlvii.6 . 

liii. 12 . 

lv.3 . . 

Iv. 12. . 

Ivii. 9 . 

Ivii. 15 . 

Ivii. 16 . 

lxvi.2 . 

Ixvi. 16 . 



24 



128, 
90 



157, 

142," 

157," 
157,' 



PAGB 
163 

29 
29 
24 
28 
163 
163 
30 
163 
28 
161, 163 
161, 165 
142, 162 
,92,163 
. 163 
. 142 
. 142 
29,69 
. 28 
78,88 
. 158 
. 158 
158,164 
104,105 
. 142 
158,164 
143,406 
. 145 
. 406 
158, 218 
. 218 
158, 217 
. 142 
. 26 
. 87 
. 407 
. 411 
. 31 
. 257 
. 142 
. 164 
. 265 
. 161 
. 22 
. 31 
. 63 
. 261 
3 
. 142 
. 260 
: 23 
. 26 
. 406 



456 



BIBLICAL INDEX. 



PAGE 

Isa. Ixvi. 22 406 

Ixvi. 24 403-407 

Jer. ii. 24 15 

iv. 19 63 

V. 21 30 

V. 23 28 

viii. 3 225 

xi. 20 32 

xii. 1 317 

xvi. 5 31 

xvii. 10 32 

xvii. 25 240 

xxi. 9 ....... 313 

xxiii. 19 411 

xxxi. 20 31 

xxxvii. 9 18 

xxxviii. 17 261 

li. 39, 57 141 

lii. 34 226 

Lam. i. 22 28 

iii. 20 15 

iii. 22. 31 

iv.7 78 

Ezek. i. 11, 23 78 

iii. 21 313 

V. 11 260 

viii. 3 97 

X. 12 78 

xiii. 18 63 

xiii. 19 261 

xviii.4 330 

xviii. 9, 17, 19, 21, 28 . . 319 

xviii. 20 202,330 

xviii. 31 26 

xxxi. 15 142 

xxxi. 16 143 

xxxi. 16, 17 142 

xxxii. 21, 27 142 

xxxiii, 13, 15, 16, 19 . . 319 

xxxvi. 26 28 

xxxvii. 3 242 

xxxvii. 11 219 

xxxvii. 12-14 219 

Dan. ii. 1 25 

vii 395 

ix. 16 402 

X.6 78 

xii. 2 141, 219, 401 

xii. 3 249 

Hos. vi. 2 .200 

xiii. 14 ... . 142, 143, 176 

Amos V. 4 313 

ix. 2 ........ 142 



PAGB 

Jon. ii. 2 142 

Mic, i. 4 411 

vi. 7 27 

vii. 3 15 

Nah. iii. 3 78 

Hab. ii. 4 49 

ii. 5 142 

Hag. ii. 13 17 

Zecli. xiv. 19 331 

Mai. ii. 16 26 

Matt. i. 21 366 

ii. 13 355 

ii. 20 34 

iii. 2 ■ . 118 

iii. 12 386, 387 

iv. 17 118 

V. 3 42 

V. 8 54 

V. 22, 29, 30 386 

V. 48 132 

vi. 25 34, 78, 79 

vii. 13 3.32,356 

vii. 14 305, 308 

viii. 12 385 

viii. 22 322, 374 

ix. 17 359 

ix. 18 . 227, 256 

ix. 24 170, 171 

X. 28 . 40, 48, 93, 168, 356, 386 

xi. 23 175 

xii. 14 355 

xii. 32 371 

xiii. 15 54 

xiii. 42 332,386 

xiii. 50 ....... 386 

xiv. 12 78 

xiv. 26 89 

XV. 19 53 

xvi. 17 193 

xvi. 18 176 

xvi. 25 42 

xvi. 28 118 

xvii. 1-9 117 

xviii. 8 387 

xviii. 8,9 305 

xviii. 9 386 

xviii. .35 54 

xix. 16 305 

xix. 17 305 

xix. 29 305 

xxi. 19 371 

xxi. 28 123 



BIBLICAL INDEX. 



457 



PAGB 

Matt.xxii.l3 ..... 385 

xxii. 23-32 109 

xxii. 37 34,44 

xxiii. 33 386 

xxiv.61 385 

XXV. 30 as5 

XXV. 41 . . . .332, 387, 408 
XXV. 46 . . 305, 386, 389, 430 

xxvi. 12 78 

xxvi. 38 34 

xxvi. 41 . 36, 42, 48, 52, 79, 99 

xxvii. 46 366 

xxvii. 50 35,39 

xxvii. 52 170, 188 

xxviii. 13 170 

Mark 1.15 118 

ii. 6 54 

ii. 8 36 

ii. 22 359 

lii. 4 283 

iii. 5 54 

iu. 29 371,390 

iv. 38. . 355 

V. 29 78 

V. 39 170 

Vii. 6 54 

viii. 12 37 

viii. 36 283 

ix. 22 355 

ix. 42 129 

ix.43 305, a;2 

ix.4a48 407 

ix. 45 305 

ix. 48 . .386, 387, 4a3, 405, 412 

X. 17, 30 305 

xi. 14 371 

xii. 18-27 109 

xii.25 187 

xii. 26 200 

xii. 44 227 

xiii. 26 119 

xiii. 30 119 

xiv. 30 122 

xiv. 38 36,48,99 

Luke i. 47 37 

1.75 226 

i. 80 36 

Ii. 19 64 

ii. 40 3(5 

U. 43 132 

iii. 17 386 

lv.21 123 

V. 37 359 



PAGB 

Luke vi. 20 6 

vi. 24 6 

viii. 14 227 

viii. 43 227 

viii. 55 35,39,224 

ix. 25 333 

ix. 31 120 

ix.47 54 

ix. 55 37 

ix. 60 322 

X. 15 175 

X.21 . . 37 

X.25 305 

X. 28 241, 305 

xi. 51 355 

xii. 4, 5 356 

xii. 5 386 

xii. 15 258 

xii. 19 34 

xii. 47, 48 443 

xiii. 5 412 

xiii. 27, 28 385,408 

xiii. 32 132 

xiii. 33 355 

XV. 4 360 

XV. 8 360 

XV. 12, 30 227 

xvi. 15 54 

xvi. 19-31 . . . 87,102,168 

xvi. 22 180 

xvi. 23 .... 177,179,181 
xvi. 25 . . 227,242,283,284 

xvi. 31 187 

xvii. 2 129 

xvii. 21 119 

xviii. 18, 30 305 

xix. 10 332 

XX. 18 412 

XX. 27-38 109 

XX. 38 108,261 

xxi. 4 227 

xxii. 45 170 

xxiii. 43 123,180 

xxiii. 46 92 

xxiv.25 54 

xxiv. 37, 39 49 

xxiv. 39 48, 79, 191 

xxiv. 45 55 

Jobni.4 . . . .243,281,299 

i. 12, 13 281 

i. 14 60 

iii. .3, 5 281,286 

iii. 4, 5 100 



458 



BIBLICAL INDEX. 



Johniii.5. . 




. 284,286,367 


iii. 6 . . . 




. 48,52,99 


iii. 8 . . . 




. . . 35,285 


iii. 12. . . 




. ... 286 


iii. 15 . . . 




. .304,355 


iii. 16. . . 




. . .285,304 


iii. 36. . . 




. .304,384 


iv. 10, 11 . 




... 254 


iv. 14. . . 




... 372 


iv. 24. . . 




37, 49, 52, 234 


iv. 34. . . 




. ... 132 


iv. 36. . . 




... 305 


V. 24 . . . 


29f 


5, 304, 326, 384 


V. 25 . . . 




. .305,326 


V. 28, 29 . 188, 


19J 


), 203, 207, 327 


V. 29 . . . 




. .205,383 


V. 39 . . . 




. ... 304 


V.40.. . . 




. . .303,305 


vi.27. . .- 




... 305 


vi. 33, 47, 63 




... 303 


vi. 35. . . 




. . . . 375 


vi. 39, 40, 44, t 


4 


. ... 205 


vi.50. . . 




. ... 376 


vi.51. . . 




. . .305,374 


vi. 53. . . 




. . . 6, 300 


vi.54. . . 




. ... 304 


vi.57. . . 




. .243,305 


vi. 58. . . 




. .305,374 


viii. 21, 24 . 




... 330 


viii.34 . . 




. ... 331 


viii. 35 . . 




. ... 372 


viii. 51 . . 




. ... 372 


viii. 52 . . 




. ... 372 


ix. 6 . . . 




... 287 


X. 10 . . . 




... 305 


X. 11 . . . 




. . 33,224 


X. 28 . . . 




. .304,372 


xi. 11 . . . 




... 170 


xi. 12. . . 




... 170 


xi. 24. . . 




. ... 205 


xi. 25. . . 




. .206,299 


xi. 25, 26 . 




. .369-374 


xi.26. . . 




. 156, 374, 376 


xi. 33. . . 




. . .37 


xii. 25 . . 




42, 2&1, 305 


xii. 27 . . 




... 34 


xii. 40 . . 






54 


xiii. 8 . . 






371 


xiii.21 . . 






37 


xiv.6 . . . 






299 


xiv. 19 . . 




. 


305 


xiv.27 . . . 




. 


308 


xvi.6 . . . 




, 


63 



FAGB 

Johnxvii. 2 304 

xvii. 3 298,393 

xvii. 23 132 

xix. 28 132 

xix. 30 35 

XX. 9 188 

XX. 27 205 

XX. 31 303 

Acts ii. 25-28 182 

ii. 27 59, 177 

ii. 29 181 

ii. 30 79 

ii. 31 177 

ii. 33 182 

ii. 34 181, 182 

ii. 37 64 

ii. 41 40 

ii. 43 34 

ii. 46 54 

ii. 47 391 

iii. 23 69 

vii. 5 320 

vii. 14 . .... . 34, 40 

vii. 31 119 

vii. 51 367 

vii. 59 92 

vii. 60 171 

viii. 37 54 

X. 41 188 

xii. 6 170 

xiii. 33 123,285 

xiii. 36 171 

xiii. 48 304 

xiv. 2 33,39 

XV. 9 54 

XV. 24 41 

xvii. 16 37, 39 

xvii. 25 ■. 227, 283 

xvii. 31 188 

xvii. 32 186 

xviii. 5 42 

xviii. 25 37 

xix. 21 36, 40 

XX. 10 33, 39, 284 

XX. 24 132 

xxi. 13 63 

xxiii. 8, 9 49 

xxiv. 15 199 

XXV. 16 ._ . 358 

xxvi.23 120,186 

xxvii. 10 IV.) 

xxvii. 37 ^0 

xxviii. 20 1-9 



BIBLICAL INDEX. 



459 



Eom. i. 3 
i.4 . 
19 . 
i. 11 . 
i. 17 . 
i.21 . 
i. 28 . 
ii.5 . 
ii. G-10 
ii. 7 . 
ii. 9 . 



17 



ii. 10 . 
ii. 28 . 
iv. 17 . 
iv. 19 . 
v.l . 
V. 12 . 
V. 14 . 
V. 17 . 
V. 17, 18 
V. 17, 21 
vi.2 . 
vi.3 . 
vi. 4 . 
vi. 5 . 
vi. 6 
vi. 6, 
vi. 7 . 
vi. 8 . 
vi. 9, 10 
vi 10, 11 
vi. 11. 
vi. IG . 
vi. 17. 
vi. 18 . 
vi. 21 . 
vi.22. 
vi.23. 
vii. 4 . 
vii. 5 . 
vii. 8 . 
Vii. 8-11 
vii. 9 . 
vii. 10 
vii. 11 
vii. 13 
vii. 14 
vii. 2.3, 25 
vii. 24 
viii. 2 
viii.4 
viiie 



211 



PAGE 

60,79 

. 285 

. 37 

. 39 

. 305 

. 54 

. 55 

. 54 



305 
39 



.307,308 

. . 79 

. . 246 

. . 266 

. . 307 

.378,380 

207, 378, 380 

. 308 

. 305 

. 378 

269, 272 

. 273 

, 212, 269, 282 

186, 208, 212, 269 

212, 209, 3;}1 

. . . STA 

... 270 

212, 270, 273 

... 210 

. .270,273 

. .210,212 

271, 329, 378 

54, 271, 3;U 

... 271 

aTO, 358, 379 

271,305,358 

202, 3;l0, 379, 381 

. .211,271 

. .329,379 

... 271 

. 267, 2(» 

257, 259, 275 

... 271 

... 270 

. .329,379 

... am 

... 65 
. .268,-379 
271, 303, 330, 379, 381 

38 

208,283,299,302,307, 
827 



16 



Rom. viii. 6, 7 

viii. 9 . 

viii. 9, 10 

viii. 10 

viii. 11 

viii. 13 

viii. 14 

viii. 15 

viii. 16 

viii. 29 

viii. 38 

X.5 . 

X.6 . 

X.9 . 

xi. 3 . 

xii. 2 . 

xii. 4 . 

xii. 11 

xiii. 1 

xiv. 9 

xiv. 17 

xvi. 4 

x\i. 18 
1 Cor. i. 18 

ii.6 . 

ii. 9 . 

ii. 10 . 

ii. 11 . 

ii. 12 . 

ii. 14 . 

ii. 14, 15 

ii. 15 . 

iii. 1 . 

ill. 16 . 

iii. 22 . 

iv.5 . 

iv. 21 . 

v. 3 . 

V. 3,4 

V.5 . 

vi. 13 . 

vi. 14 . 

vi. 19 . 

vi. 20. 

vii. 34 

vii. 39 

viii. 13 

X.4 . 

xi.30. 

xiii. 8, 10 

xiv. 14 

xiv. 37 . . 

XV. 6, 18, 20 



38 



,186, 



61 



PAOK 

66 

. 37 
. 62 
212, 283 
188, 212 
267,305 
. 38 
283,418 
. 36 
. 209 
. 226 
. 305 
. 64 
. 64 
. 269 
55,282 
. 79 
. 37 
. 40 
. 112 
. 119 
. 34 
. 64 
. 333 
. 132 
. 47 
. 47 
36, 41, 47, 62 
38,50 
. 47 
45, 50, 51 
39, 45 
. 39 
. 38 
. 226 
. 61 
. 37 
40, 41, 48, 99 
. 36 
. 42 
. 377 
. 186 
. 79 
48, 101 
36, 48, Wi 
. 170 
. 372 
. 39 
. 171 
. 377 
37,65 
. 39 
. 171 



37 



460 



BIBLICAL INDEX. 



PAGE 

1 Cor. XV. 14, 15 .... 183 

XV. 17, 18 182, 353 

XV. 19 227, 284 

XV. 20-22 206 

XV. 22 200,246 

XV. 23 205 

XV. 23, 24 205 

XV. 26 378 

XV. 35 186 

XV. 36-50 204 

XV. 37, 38 187 

XV. 44 39,46 

XV. 45 . . . •. 49,209,261 

XV. 46 46 

XV. 47, 48, 49 209 

XV. 49, 50 194 

XV. 51, 52 204 

XV. 54 378 

XV. 55 176,377 

XV. 56 377 

2Cor. ii. 4 53 

ii. 15 333, 391 

iii. 6 270 

iii. 18 209 

iv. 3 333 

iv. 10-14 213 

iv. 10 297 

iv. 11 282 

iv. 12 226 

iv. 13 37 

V. 1 203 

V. 1-3 168 

V. 1-8 127 

V. 3 84 

V. 14 274 

V. 14, 15 211 

V. 17 281 

V.21 366 

^i. 1 .... 36, 41, 52, 101 

Vii. 10 329 

vii. 13 37 

xii. 2 97 

.xii. 18 37 

Gal. i. 5 398 

i. 16 193 

ii. 14 262 

ii. 19 .271,272 

ii. 20 . . 79, 101, 211, 271, 274, 
282, 297 

V. 10 390 

V. 16, 25 38 

V. 17 37 

vi. 1 37, 39 















PAGB 


Gal. vi. 8 305 


vi. 14 . 












.211,274 


vi, 15 . 












. . 281 


vi. 18 . 












. . 37 


Eph. ii. 1 












. 208 


ii. 1, 5 












272, 323 


ii. 4-6 












. . 211 


ii.5 . 












.283,328 


ii. 16 . 












267, 275 


iv.3 . 












. . 38 


iv. 4 . 












. . 48 


iv. 9 . 












. . 178 


iv. 17 . 












. . 55 


iv. 23 . 












. 37, 41 


iv. 24 . 












. . 282 


V. 14 . 












.169,328 


V. 19 . 












. . 39 


V.30 . 












. . 208 


vi.5 . 












. . 54 


vi. 6 . 












. 33, 43 


vi. 12 . 












. . 194 


Phil. i. 20 












. . 124 


i. 21-23 












123-126 


i.22 . 








51, 100, 227 


i. 23 . 








168, 180, 352 


i.24 . 








... 100 


i. 27 . 












. 33 


iii. 10 . 












. . 209 


iii. 11 . 












. 201 


iii. 12 . 












. 133 


iii. 14. 












. 133 


iii. 15 . 












132, 133 


iii. 19 . 












. 358 


iii. 21 . 








1 


86 


188,208 


iv.7 . 












. 55 


Col. i. 13 












. 118 


i. 18 . 












. 120 


ii.5 . . 








3( 


5,' 


8, 49, 99 


ii.6 . 












. 325 


ii. 10 . 












. 325 


ii.l2 . 












. 211 


ii. 13 . . 






28: 


J, 3 


23, 


325, 328 


ii. 20 . 












209, 274 


iii. 1-3 












. 209 


iii. 3,4 . 












. 282 


iii. 10. . 












. 282 


iii. 22. . 












. 54 


iii. 23. . 












. 33 


1 Thess. ii. 


4 










. 54 


ii. 15 . . 












. 269 


ii. 17 . . 












. 56 


iii. 8 . . 












. 258 


iii. 13. . 












. 54 



BIBLICAL INDEX. 



461 



1 Thess. iv 


.13-15 






. . 171 


Heb. X. 14 


. 










. . 133 


iv. 14 . 


. . . 






. . 206 


X.22 . 


. 










. . 54 


iv. 16 . 












. . 205 


X.38 . 


. 










. . 49 


iv. 16, 17 












. . 126 


xi. 5 . 


, 










. . 151 


iv. 17 . 












. . 408 


xi. 13, 39 












. . 131 


V. 3 . 












. . 332 


xi. 40 . 


. 










. 131, 133 


v. 6 . 












. . 169 


xii. 1 . 












.129, 1(» 


V. 10 . 












. . 169 


xii. 3 . 












. 33,34 


V.23 . 












. 43,45 


xii. 9 . 












. . 305 


2 Thess. i. < 






335 


1,3 


60, 


389, 407 


xii. 18, 19 










. . 135 


ii.8 . 












. . 35 


xii. 22, 23 










. . 134 


ii. 10 . 












. . 333 


xii. 23 . 


38 


,4H 


),1 


30 


133, 168 


1 Tim. ii. 2 












. . 227 


xiii. 17 












. . 34 


V.6 . 












.323,325 


Jaa. i. 12 












. . 305 


vi.5 . 












. . 55 


i. 15 . 












. 329 


vi. 12 . 












.130,304 


i. 18 . 












. . 282 


vi. 19. 












. . 303 


i. 21 . 












. 34 


2 Tim. i. 1 , 












. 305 


i. 26 . 












. 54 


i. 10 . . 












376, 378 


ii. 17, 20, 


26 










. . 266 


ii.4 . 












. 227 


ii. 22 . 












. 132 


ii. 18 . . 












. 204 


ii.26 . 












55, 39, 52 


ii. 22 . 












. 54 


iii. 2 . 












. 132 


iii. 12. . 












. 262 


iii. 9 . 












. 51 


iv. 1 . . 












. 118 


iii. 15 . 












. 46 


iv. 6 . . 












. 127 


iv.8 . 












. 54 


iv. 18. . 












. 398 


iv. 14 . 












226,284 


iv.22. . 












. 37 


V.20 . 










45 


\ 59, 330 


Tit. 1.2. . 












. 305 


1 Pet. i. 3 












. 282 


ii. 12 . . 












. 262 


i. 9 . 












. 42 


iii. 6 . . 












. 282 


i. 22 . 












41,54 


iii. 7 . . 












. 305 


i. 23 . 












. 282 


Heb. i. 14 . 












. 49 


ii.2 . 












. 282 


ii. 10 . . 












132,134 


ii. 5 . 












. 260 


ii. 14 . . 












. 377 


ii.24 . 












. 274 


iii. 7, 16 . 












. 123 


iii. 4 . . 












»,42,54 


iii. 10. . 












. fH 


iii. 7 . 












. 305 


iii. 12. . 












. 54 


iii. 18-20 












. 128 


iv.7 . . 












. 123 


iii. 19 . 












40,178 


iv. 12. . 












44,54 


iii. 20 . 












. 34 


V.2 . . 












. 130 


iv. 2 . 












. 227 


v. 8, 9 . 












. 134 


iv.3 . , 












. 227 


V.9 . . 












132,390 


2 Pet. i. 3 












. 303 


vi. 1 . . 












.266 


ii.l . . 












. 332 


vi.2 . . 








3 


89, 


390,392 


ii.9 . . 












. 168 


vii. 19 . 












. 131 


ii. 14 . 












. 41 


vii. 22 . 












. 131 


ii. 17 . . 












. 386 


vii. 28 . 












. 132 


iii. 4 . , 












. 171 


viU.6. . 












. 131 


iii. 7 . . 












. a32 


ix.9 . . 












. 132 


1 John i. 2 












. 303 


ix. 12. . 












. 390 


ii. 16 . . 












. 227 


ix. 14. . 












. 266 


il. 25 . . 












. 305 


ix. 27. . 












. 435 


ii.29 . . 












. 281 


x.l . . 












. 133 


iU.2 . . 








2( 


»; 


281,286 



462 



BIBLICAL INDEX. 



PAGE 

IJohniii. 9 281 

iii. 14 298, 326 

iii. 15 301,304 

iii. 17 227 

iii. 20, 21 54 

iv. 1-3 40 

iv. 17 . 132 

iv. 18 . 132 

V. 11 •. . . 304 

V. 12 297 

T. 13 304 

V.16, 17. ..:... 329 
V. 18 281 

Jude6 169 

7 387 

12 323 

19 46,51 

Bev. i. 18 176 

iii. 1 323 

V. 14 398 

vi. 8 176 

vi. 9 . . . . . 40,135,168 



PAOB 

Rev. vi. 10 135 

vi. 11 137 

viii. 9 39,69 

xi. 11 35 

xii. 11 33 

xiii. 15 ...... . 35 

xiv. 10 ... . 386, 395, 396 

xiv. 13 175 

xiv. 10, 11 394 

xvi. 3 34, 59, 261 

xix. 20 386, 395 

XX. 4 40, 137, 205 

XX. 5 205, 246, 327 

XX.4, 5, 12-15 200 

XX. 10 . . 386,394-397,401 

XX. 13 179 

XX. 13, 14 ...... 176 

XX. 14 396, 397 

XX. 15 . . 332,386,395,396 

xxi. 1 320 

xxi. 8 396 

xxii. 5 398 




Stereotyped by C. J. Peters <& Son, 73 Federal Street, Boston. 



UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 



THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
STAMPED BELOW 



■ 2581914 

APR :,. 1963 

UBRARYUSE 

APR 13 1963 
RECD LD 



30m-6,'14 



U) 



1784 






